- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36144 WP No. 27492 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27492 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: SMT.SUDHA, W/O JAVARASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHUNCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAHALLI POST, BELLUR HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571811. BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF CO-OPERATION, KARNATKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION (KMF), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. TAHSILDAR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571432. 3. ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571401. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36144 WP No. 27492 of 2025 4. RETURNING OFFICER, CHUNCHANAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD., NAGAMANGALA TLAUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571432. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S. ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER /PUBLICATION DATED 01.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a publication dated 01.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 treating her as belonging to category - B, though she had filed her nomination against category - IIA. 2. She contends that election to the Chunchanahalli Milk Producers Mahila Co-operative Societies Limited., Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, was scheduled on 07.09.2025. The petitioner being a candidate belonging to category – IIA had filed her nomination against one of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36144 WP No. 27492 of 2025 posts of directors reserved for category – IIA. However, the respondent No.4 in terms of the impugned publication had treated the petitioner as belonging to category – B. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the publication issued by the respondent No.4, on the ground that the said order has the consequence of changing her caste. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner belongs to category – IIA, which is evident from the caste and income certificate issued by the Tahsildar. He contends that as per the calendar of events, one of the posts of directors of the society was reserved for category – IIA and the petitioner therefore had filed her nomination for the said category. He contends that the respondent No.4 without the authority of law, treated the candidature of the petitioner as against category – B, which is beyond his jurisdiction and authority. He therefore prays that the impugned publication be set aside and the consequential board of management of the society be quashed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36144 WP No. 27492 of 2025 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that election to the board of the society is already held on 07.09.2025. He contends that any improper rejection or improper acceptance of the nomination has to be questioned before the concerned authority under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and not before this Court. He therefore submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. 5. It is not in dispute that the elections to the Board of Management of the society was held on 07.09.2025. The petitioner has challenged the alteration in the list of nominations by the respondent No.4 who had treated the petitioner’s candidature as against category – B instead of category – IIA. Now that the elections to the managing committee is already held on 07.09.2025, this Court cannot go into the question whether the nomination of the petitioner was rightly treated as one against category – B though the petitioner had filed the candidature under category – IIA. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, the wrongful acceptance or wrongful rejection of the nomination, gives rise to a cause of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36144 WP No. 27492 of 2025 action to challenge the election before the concerned authority and this Court cannot go into the said question. 6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off as having become infructuous. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the results of the election in accordance with law before the appropriate authority. Time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating the applicable limitation. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25