- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1297 OF 2025 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA PRADESHA BALIJA SANGHA ® ANEKAL THIMMAIAH CHARITIES TRUST 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA PRADESHA BALIJA SANGHA ® ANEKAL THIMMAIAH CHARITIES TRUST 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 018 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH MR.PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VENUGOPAL C S/O SRI CHANNAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 158, BYATARAYANAPURA BEHIND SRI RAMA TEMPLE SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 092 Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 2. SRI. THILAK KUMAR S S/O SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 1ST STAGE 1ST CROSS, K.R.GARDEN COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 005 3. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.16/1, PARK ROAD COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 005 4. SRI. S RAMESH S/O LATE R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT No.2360, 1ST A MAIN C BLOCK SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 092 5. SRI. LAKSHMAN S/O ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.133/2, 4TH CROSS NEAR LAND T FACTORY BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 560 092 6. SRI. VINAY V S S/O SRI SRINIVAS M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.171/1 JEEVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD JEEVAMAHALLI FRASER TOWN BENGALURU - 560 005 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 7. SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI S/O SRI. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.54, 2ND CROSS SRI RAMA TEMPLE STREET COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 005 8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 9. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 2ND ZONE, SAHAKARA SOUDHA 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 10. THE RETURNING OFFICER KARNATAKA PRADESHA BALIJA SANGHA AND HEAD QUARTERS ASSISTANT AND ASSISTANT REGSTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES SAHAKARA SOUDHA MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 …RESPONDENTS (SRI PRABHULIND K. NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI ANAND P, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT No.5 SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.8, 9 AND 10) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.22553/2025 [GM-KSR] BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an interim order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Single in Writ Petition No.22553/2025. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 – claiming to be aspirants of membership of appellant No.1 and desirous of contesting the elections of office bearers of the governing body of appellant – have preferred the said petition inter alia praying as under: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice Annual General Meeting and calendar of events dated 14-07-2025 published by the Returning Officer i.e., the Respondent No.3 herein, vide Annexure-R. b) Issue the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3, 4 & 5 to conduct the election of respondent No.4 after complying - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 with the direction contained under the order dated 28-05-2025 passed in W.A No.280/2025 C/W 234/2025 updating the voters list as per the direction of the Respondent No.2 in his communication dated 03-01-2022, vide Annexure-C. c) Pass such other order/s as may be this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity." 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are hereafter referred to as the Petitioners. The petitioners claim that they are eligible to be members of the appellant No.1 society and it is necessary that all applicants who are eligible to become members of the appellant society be enrolled before the electoral roll is prepared and elections to the governing body of the appellant society is conducted. On the aforesaid basis, the petitioners also sought interim orders for interdicting the election process that had commenced. 4. The learned Single Judge has granted the interim order dated 01.08.2025, which is impugned in this appeal. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: "(a) The Returning Officer may continue to receive the nominations but there shall be no further action. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 (b) The Registry is directed to tag these writ petitions along with the Contempt Petition in CCC No.814/2025 and liberty is reserved to the petitioners in the writ petition in W.P No.22553/2025 to move the Division Bench for listing of these petitions along with the contempt proceedings provided they file the second set of the petitions and the Statement of Objections." 5. It is clear from the above, the learned Single Judge has interdicted the elections, which had commenced. The dispute between the parties essentially relates to non-inclusion of certain persons as members of the appellant-society. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved by non-inclusion of certain persons who had expressed their willingness to become members of the society in the electoral roll. 6. The present litigation has a checkered history. Prima facie, there is essentially a contest between certain group of persons for control of the appellant society. The Petitioners had approached the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies and at their instance, it had issued a letter dated 03.01.2022 directing the appellant to consider the request of various persons who will be eligible to become members of the appellant society. The said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 letter was subject matter of consideration by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.280/2025 c/w Writ Appeal No.234/2025. 7. It is material to note that the petitioners were appellants in the aforementioned writ appeals (W.A No.280/2025 c/w W.A No.234/2025). The said appeals were disposed of by this Court in terms of an order dated 28.05.2025. The operative part of the said order reads as under: "(i) The impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3123 of 2022 is hereby set aside; (ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the request of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership in accordance with the bye-laws, as directed by the impugned letter dated 03.01.2022 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition), issued by respondent No.2-District Registrar of Co-operative Societies and admit such persons who are eligible for membership and thereafter conduct necessary elections to respondent No.3 Governing Council; (iii) The applications filed by the petitioners and similarly situated persons for membership shall be considered within a period of four weeks from today and necessary voter list shall be prepared thereafter forthwith and the elections to respondent No.3 shall be conducted within three months thereafter." - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 8. It is admitted that as on the date of the said order, there were 161 (one hundred and sixty-one) persons who had applied for membership of the appellant-society. However, it appears that thereafter further 12,000 (twelve thousand) persons have applied for membership of the appellant society. And, it is the petitioners’ contention that it is necessary for the appellant society to also consider the applications of those 12,000 persons before preparing the electoral roll and conducting elections for the office bearers of the governing body of the appellant Society. The learned Single Judge has, prima facie, accepted the said view. 9. It is trite law that an election process once which has commenced ought not to be ordinarily interdicted. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94, the Supreme Court considered the import of the word “election” as used in Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which provides that an election will not be in question, except by an election petition. In this context, the Supreme Court concluded as under: "25. The conclusions which I have arrived at may be summed up briefly as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 (1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the “election”; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the “election” and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress. 10. The principle that election once commenced would not be interdicted was also reiterated by the Supreme Court in several decisions thereafter including in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v. The Chief Election Commissioner: AIR 1978 SC 851 and Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.: (2000) 8 SCC 216. Although the said decisions were rendered in the context of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 the principle that the courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in election process once it has commenced has been extended to election of various other bodies as well. 11. In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik : (2011) 13 SCC 774. The Supreme Court has observed: “Since 1952 this court authoritatively laid down that once election process has started, the court should not ordinarily interfere with the said process by way of granting injunction”. 12. We also consider it apposite to set out the principles as summarized by the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (supra). The relevant extract is reproduced below, “32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove: (1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” [ emphasis added] 13. In Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) SahakariDugdhaUtpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509, the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the preparation of the electoral roll is an intermediate stage of the election process. It follows that once such process is commenced, the election process should not be, ordinarily, be interfered with. We consider it apposite to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court: “12. In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellants to challenge the election of the returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 14. In the present case, we do not find any circumstances which would warrant the election process to be interdicted after it has commenced. We are also unable to accept that the directions issued in terms of the order dated 28.05.2025 have been violated in the present case. We say so because, applications of 161 (one hundred and sixty-one) applicants, which were pending as on 28.05.2025 plus the application of the petitioners, who were appellants in the aforesaid appeals, were considered. All of the said applicants, except three of the petitioners, who the appellant states did not respond to their communications, were admitted as members of the appellant-society. It is stated that their names are mentioned in the electoral roll on the basis of which, the election to the governing council of the appellant are now being conducted. We are unable to accept that the directions would also cover inclusion of other persons who had applied for membership after the date of the said order, that is after the date of 28.05.2025. Clearly, preparation of an electoral roll cannot be considered as an open ended process. Thus, the directions for the appellant society (arrayed as respondent No.3 in the aforementioned appeals) to consider the request of the petitioners (respondent Nos.1 to 7 in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30782-DB WA No. 1297 of 2025 the present appeal) and other similarly placed persons would necessarily mean the persons who had filed their applications and thus, were similarly placed as the petitioners as on that date – 28.05.2025. 15. In this view, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 16. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86