- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9350 WP No. 4838 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 4838 OF 2026 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T M NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE V.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 2. SRI. T.M.VENKATESHAPPA, S/O. LATE V.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 3. SMT. SUSHILAMMA, W/O. LATE E.GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. SRI.N.CHANDRAPPA, S/O. T.M.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6. SRI.S.KISHORE KUMAR, S/O. N.SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 7. SMT. RAJAMMA, W/O.HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9350 WP No. 4838 of 2026 8. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 9. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY.M, S/O. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 10. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O.RAJANNA.E, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 11. SMT. BHAGYAMMA.K, W/O. SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 12. SMT. BHAGYAMMA.K, W/O. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 13. SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 14. SRI. V. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 15. SRI SURESH BABU G S/O GURUPAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 16. SRI.SUJATHAMMA, W/O. VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS P1 TO P16 ARE RESIDING AT TAMAKA, WARD NO.1, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9350 WP No. 4838 of 2026 KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 101, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHADRI R @ BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR , SHANTINAGAR TTMC, ‘A’ BLOCK, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD SHANTI NAGAR BENGALURU 560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER, TAMAKA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., TAMAKA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 101, KOLAR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAMAKA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., TAMAKA WARD NO.1, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9350 WP No. 4838 of 2026 KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4, SRI. DEVARAJA.A, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO 5 TO INCLUDE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE FINAL ELIGIBLE VOTER LIST DTD 14.01.2025 VIDE ANNX-B AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CAST THEIR VOTES IN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS TO RESPONDENT NO.5 SOCIETY WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 14.02.2026 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION/S TO RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 TO CONDUCT ELECTION TO RESPONDENT NO.5 SOCIETY BY INCLUDING NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE FINAL ELECTORAL VOTERS LIST VIDE ANNX-B IN THE ACCORDANCE WITH RULE-13D OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVES SOCIETIES RULES 1960, ETC. 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.4-the Returning Officer, wherein names of the petitioners were not shown in the voters’ list, filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to include the names of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9350 WP No. 4838 of 2026 petitioners in the eligible voters’ list, and further direct respondent Nos.3 to 5 to allow the petitioners to vote for the elections of respondent No.5-Society, which are scheduled to be held on 14.02.2026 vide Annexure-A. 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 1 WP No.148379/2020, disposed of on 03.11.2020 2 (1985) 1 SCC 21 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9350 WP No. 4838 of 2026 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 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 and they cannot be entertained in the writ petition. 3 1990 SCC OnLine Kar 184 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9350 WP No. 4838 of 2026 4. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the cases referred supra, the petitioners have no right to question the final electoral roll before the High Court in the writ 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 petitioners to raise their 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.: 4 Sl No.: 1