Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57082 (KAR)

MR LINGADEVARU R B v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27765/2025 · 2025-09-25

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27765 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. MR. LINGADEVARU R.B. S/O BASAVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. MR. SIDDAMALLAPPA S/O. GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. MR. SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O. CHIKKANNA @ MARIMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. MR. R.C. PUTTABUDDI S/O. CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 6. MR. R.B. JAGADISH S/O. LATE R.M. BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. MRS. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE R.M. BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 8. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. B.M. NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 9. SMT. NAGARATHNA W/O. MARIPOOJAIAH R.P AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 10. MR. DORESWAMY S/O. LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 11. SMT. MAHALAKSHMI W/O. CHIKKAPOOJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 12. MR. R M VEERENDRAKUMAR S/O. K. MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 13. MRS. SHIVAMMA W/O. PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 14. MR. B.M. NAGENDRASWAMY S/O. LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 15. MR. CHIKKARAVALAIAH S/O LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 16. MR. PRABHUSWAMY S/O. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 17. MRS. RATHNAMMA W/O.PRABHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 18. MRS. KUSAMMA W/O. LATE. MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 19. MR. HARISH R.D S/O. DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 20. MRS. REKHA.J W/O. B.M. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 21. MRS. B.UMA W/O.LATE.R.M. SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 22. MRS. VIDYAMBA W/O. B.S. NANJUDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 23. MR. R N NAVEEN KUMAR S/O NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 24. MR. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O CHIKKARAVALAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 25. MR. SHIVAPPA S/O PUTTAMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 26. MR. NIRANJAN R M S/O MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 27. MR. B K NAVEEN S/O LATE KEMPANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 28. SMT. RANI W/O MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 29. MR. R N SHIVAKUMAR S/O R C NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 30. MRS. SUSHEELA W/O SHIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 31. MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O LATE MARIMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 32. MRS. SAVITHA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 33. MR. SIDDARAJU S/O BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 34. MRS. GOWRAMMA W/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 35. MRS. ROOPA R N W/O R N SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 36. MR. ANAND P S/O PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 37. MR. POOJEGOWDA S/O KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 38. MR. SAMPATH R G S/O PUTTAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 39. MR. R M NANJUNDASWAMY S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 40. MRS. REVAMMA W/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 41. MRS. MAHADEVAMMA W/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 42. MR. C SHIVAKUMAR S/O CHIKKALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 43. MR. MAHADEVA S/O CHIKKAKULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 44. MR. MAHADEVA S/O CHIKKALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 45. MR. GIRISH R S S/O SHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 46. MR. GIRISH S/O GURUMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 47. MR. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE MARINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 48. MR. R.G. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE GURUNANJAPPA AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS 49. MR. LINGAPPA S/O MARIDEVARU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 50. MR. B S NANJUNDASWAMY S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 51. MR. JAYARAJ S/O LATE MARIMADAPPA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS 52. MR. SHIVANNA S/O POOJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 53. MR. B M BASAVANNA S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 54. MR. JAGADISH J C S/O CHIKKAPOOJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 55. MR. R C RAJASHEKARMURTHY S/O C CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 56. MR. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE MALLESH AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS 57. MR. R C PARAMESHWARA S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 58. MR. BHAGYAMMA W/O R M MURUSHENDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 59. MR. MANJU R S S/O LATE SHIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 60. MR. H L VENKATESH S/O M LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 61. MR. SHIVAMURTHY S/O PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 62. MRS. BHAGYAMMA W/O NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 63. MR. SADASHIVAMURTHY S/O MADAPPA B S AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 64. MRS. PADAMA W/O MADAPPA B S AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 65. MR. LOKESH R B S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 66. MRS. SHAKUNTHALA S W/O LOKESH R B AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 67. MRS. SUNDRAMMA W/O BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 68. MR. K SHAIVASWAMY S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 69. MR. DEVARAJU S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 70. MRS. PRAPULLADEVI W/O LATE CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 71. MR. SHIVANNA S/O. CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 72. MR. MAHADEVAPRASAD. R.M S/O. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 73. MRS. SUMA W/O. RAJASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 74. MRS. PUTTASIDDAMMA W/O. MARIMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 75. MRS. MAHADEVAMMA W/O. MARIMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT RAGIBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATHYA M.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR, T.T.M.C. A BLOCK, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. 4. RETURNING OFFICER RAGIBOMMANAHALLI MULTIPURPOSE PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., RAGIBOMMANAHALLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. 5. RAGIBOMMANAHALLI MULTIPURPOSE PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. RAGIBOMMANAHALLI, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI. A. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS LIST AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO VOTES IN THE ELECTION SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 13.09.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE RESPONDENT NO.5 SOCIETY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have all challenged the action of the respondent No.3 in including their names in the ineligible voters list. They all contend that they are eligible to cast their votes at the elections to the managing committee of the respondent No.5. The petitioners are the members of respondent No.5 and the term of the board of directors would expire on 12.09.2025. They contend that elections to the managing committee of respondent No.5 is due for the period 2025-30. Hence, an election officer and returning officer was appointed who has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 scheduled the elections on 13.09.2025. They contend that the election officer had included their names in the ineligible voters list. They claim that out of 549 members of respondent No.5 only 256 members are declared eligible to vote. The petitioners contend that the election officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 13-D (2A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (henceforth referred to as 'the Rules, 1960' for short), before including their names in the ineligible list. 2. This Court in terms of an interim order dated 12.09.2025, had permitted the petitioners to cast their votes and the respondent No.4/returning officer was directed to keep them separately and not count them. The respondent No.4 was directed to count the eligible votes cast and to declare the results of the election, which was however subject to the outcome of this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are eligible to vote at the elections to the managing committee of the respondent No.5. He submits that the respondent No.3 - election officer has not complied with the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 provisions of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, by issuing a notice and informing them the reason for their ineligibility. Therefore, He contends that the impugned ineligibility list containing the names of the petitioners is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the official respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate before the Court that they are eligible to vote at the elections to the managing committee. He contends that in view of the judgment of the this Court in B.Ganganna v. State of Karnataka - ILR 2024 Karnataka 1901, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider this dispute as it involves questions of fact. He therefore submits that the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. The names of the petitioners appeared in the list of intelligible voters at the elections to the managing committee of the respondent No.5. The petitioners have not disclosed as to how and why they were made ineligible. They have also not disclosed as to how they are eligible and whether the requirements of Section 20(2a-iv) and (a-v) of the Karnataka - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1959' for short) were complied by them. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is not possible for this Court to determine the eligibility or ineligibility of the petitioners. In this regard reference is made to paragraph No.29 in B.Ganganna's case supra: "29. However, a word of caution is needed here. The right to vote and the disqualification to vote in the election to the board of the co-operative society is not just dependent on the procedure to be followed under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules. The right to vote or ineligibility to vote depends on the members meeting, the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 20(a-iv) and (a -v) Non-compliance with the mandatory procedures prescribed under Rule 13-D(2-A) for preparation of voters’ list ipso facto will not make the ineligible voter, eligible to vote. Eligibility to vote is also required to be demonstrated. It is quite possible that even if Rule 13-D(2-A) is not followed, the list may conform to Section 20 (a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act, 1959. Thus, apart from demonstrating that the Rule 13-D is not complied, the member has to demonstrate that he is eligible to vote but should also demonstrate that the faulty voters’ list made an impact on the election results." - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 Similar view was also taken by this court in Arunodaya Multipurpose Co-operative Society v. State of Karnataka, WP. No. 17756/2025. 6. Therefore, it is appropriate to relegate the petitioners before the concerned authority under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959. 7. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER i. This petition is disposed off. ii. The petitioners are directed to approach the concerned authority under 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959 and establish their eligibility to vote in the election to the managing committee of the respondent No.5. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The concerned authorities shall decide the dispute within three months thereafter. If the concerned authorities is of the opinion that the petitioners are eligible, then the votes cast by them shall also be taken into account. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38937 WP No. 27765 of 2025 iii. In that event, the respondent No.4 shall pass appropriate orders and declare the modified results. iv. It is needless to mention that if the petitioners are found to be ineligible, then the respondent No.4 shall exclude the votes of the petitioners and issue appropriate declaration declaring the results of the elections to the managing committee of the respondent No.5. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21