- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7356 WP No. 3789 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 3789 OF 2026 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. DISTRICT HORTICULTURE GROWERS PRODUCE SALES AND MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS M.D MEMBERSHIP NO.014/033 (REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959). 2. A. N. MAHESH S/O. A.N. NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DELEGATE/DIRECTOR OF DISTRICT HORTICULTURE GROWERS PRODUCE SALES AND MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR.,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 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, K.H.ROAD, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7356 WP No. 3789 of 2026 SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HORTICULTURE SALES MAHAMANDALA LTD., (K.H.F), A.P.M.C COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BINNI MILL ROAD, BANGALORE-23. 4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 012. 5. THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HORTICULTURE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, (K.H.F), A.P.M.C COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BINNI MILL ROAD, BANGALORE-23 REP. BY ITS M.D REG. UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT-1960. 6. THE RETURNING OFFICER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HORTICULTURE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED (K.H.F.) A P M C COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BINNI MILL ROAD, BANGALORE-23. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1,R3,R4 AND R6, SRI.A. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7356 WP No. 3789 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF PETITIONER-1 IN THE VOTER LIST AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 6 TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER-1 DELEGATE I.E. PETITIONER-2 TO VOTE AND CONTEST OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT BOARD OF DIRECTOR ELECTIONS WHICH ARE SCHEDULED ON 01-02-2026 TO 15- 02-2026, AS PER ANNX-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.6-the Returning Officer, wherein name of petitioner No.1 was not shown in the voters’ list, filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 6 to include the name of petitioner No.1 in the voters’ list, and further direct respondent Nos.2 to 6 to allow petitioner No.1-delegate i.e., petitioner No.2 to vote and contest for respondent No.5 Board of Directors’ elections, which are scheduled from 01.02.2026 to 15.02.2026 vide Annexure-J. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7356 WP No. 3789 of 2026 2. In the case of Bhimappa Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others1 filed before this Court, a similar relief was sought. This Court, vide order dated 03.11.2020, dismissed the writ petition referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inderjit Barua and Others Vs. Election Commission of India2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has, in paragraph No.3 of the judgment, held as follows: “3. We are of the view that once the final electoral rolls are published and elections are held on the basis of such electoral rolls, it is not open to anyone to challenge the election from any constituency or constituencies on the ground that the electoral rolls were defective. That is not a ground available for challenging an election under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The finality of the electoral rolls cannot be assailed in a proceeding challenging the validity of an election held on the basis of such electoral rolls vide Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh [(1969) 2 SCC 452 : (1970) 1 SCR 845 : AIR 1970 SC 340 : 42 ELR 325] . Article 329 (b) in our opinion clearly bars any writ petition challenging the 1 WP No.148379/2020, disposed of on 03.11.2020 2 (1985) 1 SCC 21 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7356 WP No. 3789 of 2026 impugned elections on the ground that the electoral rolls of 1979 on the basis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid.” The findings in the aforesaid judgment would clearly indicate that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there is a clear bar to any writ petition challenging the defect in electoral roll. 3. Further, this Court in the case of J. Robert Vs. Ram Jethmalani3 held that, even if there is an error in preparation of electoral roll, the same cannot be questioned before the High Court. As far as preparation of electoral roll, addition or deletion of names etc., are all the matters pertaining to the dispute relating to electoral roll cannot be entertained in the writ petition. 4. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the cases referred supra, the petitioner has no right to question the final electoral roll before the High Court in the writ 3 1990 SCC OnLine Kar 184 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7356 WP No. 3789 of 2026 jurisdiction. The High Court has no right in interfering in the process of election, as the election process has already commenced. 5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the appropriate forum, if so desired. 6. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23