Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9466 (KAR)

SRI N GOPAL KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/4707/2026 · 2026-02-13

Ashok S Kinagi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9349 WP No. 4707 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. 4707 OF 2026 (CS-EL/M) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N GOPAL KRISHNA S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO. 51/115 2. SRI. N. RAJANNA, S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO. 51/114 P1 AND P2 ARE R/OF S. BISANAHALLI VILLAGE, H. GOLLAHALLI POST, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9349 WP No. 4707 of 2026 2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY, 3RD FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, SHANTHI NAGAR TTMC BUILDING, KHB ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, 8TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. 5. THE RETURNING OFFICER, HORTICULTURE PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. (HOPCOMS), LALBAGH, BENGALURU - 560 004. 6. HORTICULTURE PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. (HOPCOMS), LALBAGH, BENGALURU - 560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. (SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT-1959) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) QUASH THE DISQUALIFIED/IN-ELIGIBLE VOTERS LIST, VIDE ANNEXUREA, DATED NIL, PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 6, I.E., THE HORTICULTURE PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9349 WP No. 4707 of 2026 PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD., (HOPCOMS), LALBAGH, BENGALURU 560 004., DATED-NIL-, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CONTEST, IN THE ELECTIONS TO BE CONDUCTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 6/SOCIETY, ON 24.02.2026 (II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 6 TO CONSIDER AND INCLUDE/ADD THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-D, DATED -NIL-, PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 6, I.E., FOR THE HORTICULTURE PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD., (HOPCOMS), LALBAGH, BENGALURU 560 004., DATED -NIL-, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTIONS PROCESS AND TO CAST THEIR VOTE, IN THE ELECTIONS TO BE CONDUCTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 6/SOCIETY, ON 24.02.2026, 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.5-the Returning Officer, wherein names of the petitioners were not shown in the voters’ list, filed this writ petition seeking certiorari to quash ineligible voters’ list and a mandamus directing respondent No.6 to include the names of the petitioners in the voters’ list, and further, direct respondent No.6 to allow the petitioners to vote and contest for the elections of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9349 WP No. 4707 of 2026 respondent No.6-Society, which are scheduled to be held on 24.02.2026 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 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 : 1 WP No.148379/2020, disposed of on 03.11.2020 2 (1985) 1 SCC 21 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9349 WP No. 4707 of 2026 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. 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 3 1990 SCC OnLine Kar 184 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9349 WP No. 4707 of 2026 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.: 2 Sl No.: 26