Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 853 (KAR)

D. Puttegowda v. G. T. Devegowda

2015-08-04

B.V.NAGARATHNA, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT : SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, Actg. C.J. : By consent of the learned advocates for the contesting parties, we take the appeals for hearing. 2. These appeals are against judgment and order dated July 28, 2015 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in Writ Petition No. 31005 of 1995. By the order impugned, the Hon’ble single Judge, inter alia, passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated July 23, 2015 passed by the Returning Officer for Election of the Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Limited, rejecting the nomination of the candidature of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in these appeals, for election of the Board of Directors of the said Federation. 3. The writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in the appeals, is a member of the respondent No. 8-Srikanteshwara Multipurpose Co-operative Society. He was co-opted as a Director of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 8. The respondent No. 8 is stated to be a member of the Mysore District Co-operative Union. At the time of holding election of the Mysore District Co-operative Union, the respondent No. 8 nominated the writ petitioner the respondent No. 1 in these appeals to contest the election of the respondent No. 7-Mysore District Co-operative Union. The writ petitioner was elected as a Director of the respondent No. 7 also. As a Director, the writ petitioner claims that he was entitled to contest for election of the respondent No. 5-the Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Limited. 4. The election of writ petitioner as a Director of the respondent No. 7 is challenged in a dispute under S. 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, before the Registrar of Co-operative Society. The matter is now pending before the Joint Registrar concerned. Two disputes were filed challenging the election of the Directors of the Mysore District Co-operative Union. The first challenge was in relation to the entire election. The second challenge was specifically against the writ petitioner, questioning his eligibility to contest the election of the respondent No. 7. 5. However, as the nomination of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer, the writ petitioner approached this Court and obtained ad interim order of injunction, as indicated hereinabove, from the Hon’ble single Judge. 6. These appeals are filed challenging the order of the Hon’ble single Judge. 5. However, as the nomination of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer, the writ petitioner approached this Court and obtained ad interim order of injunction, as indicated hereinabove, from the Hon’ble single Judge. 6. These appeals are filed challenging the order of the Hon’ble single Judge. A Division Bench of this Court while entertaining these appeals, inter alia, passed an interim order on July 31, 2015 permitting the authorities to hold the election scheduled for August 1, 2015. However, it was directed that the results would not be declared till August 4, 2015. 7. The learned Advocate General strenuously argues that the respondent No. 8 was not competent and could not be a member of the respondent No. 7, by drawing our attention to the bye-laws of respondent No. 7 — the Mysore District Co-operative Union that membership are open only to primary co-operative societies, taluk level societies and district level societies. He draws our attention to the explanation to bye-law 7 of the respondent No. 7 that primary co-operative societies would have their areas of operations confined to below the taluka level, minimum of having one village. Learned Advocate General draws our attention to the bye-law of the respondent No. 8-Srikanteshwara Multipurpose Co-operative Society and submits that the area of the operation of the Society is extended to the districts of Mysore, Mandya, Chamarajanagar, Hassan and Madikeri. Therefore, learned Advocate General submits that it is neither a primary co-operative society nor a taluk level co-operative society nor a district co-operative society. Learned Advocate General submits, therefore, that the respondent No. 8 is not eligible to become a member of the respondent No. 7. Thus, there was no scope of nominating the writ petitioner to contest the election of the respondent No. 7. He submits that the writ petitioner is not validly elected as a Director of the respondent No. 7. He cannot participate in the election of the Federation. 8. Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner, on the contrary, argues emphatically that the respondent No. 8 was a founder member of the respondent No. 7. The membership of the respondent No. 8 is not yet cancelled. Therefore, the respondent No. 8 is certainly entitled to nominate a candidate for election of the respondent No. 7. Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner, on the contrary, argues emphatically that the respondent No. 8 was a founder member of the respondent No. 7. The membership of the respondent No. 8 is not yet cancelled. Therefore, the respondent No. 8 is certainly entitled to nominate a candidate for election of the respondent No. 7. Now, the question is whether the Hon’ble single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in passing an interim order in relation to an election dispute. Normally, it is settled law, no election process can be stalled once election process has started. Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, provides for a reference of a dispute to the Registrar for a decision. Assuming for the sake of argument that the nomination of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in these appeals, was rejected by the Returning Officer erroneously, he has an alternative, effacious remedy before the Registrar on facts and law. Section 70 of the said Act provides for settlement of a dispute. Section 71, sub-section (3), provides that the Registrar or any other person to whom the dispute is referred, is entitled to pass an interim direction. 9. Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner, however, submits that alternative remedy is not a bar. The Court has imposed a restrain in its own wisdom on its exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India where the party invoking the jurisdiction has an effective and adequate alternative remedy. Mr. Jayakumar Patil, learned senior Advocate draws our attention to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1618 of 2010 (State of Karnataka and others v. Sri S. L. Dharme Gowda and others). He submits that a Division Bench of this Court upheld an order of injunction granted by a Hon’ble single Judge in spite of the existence of an alternative remedy. With respect we say that the decision was rendered on the facts of that case. 10. Therefore, we have serious doubts as to whether the Hon’ble single Judge was justified in entertaining the writ petition at this stage and in passing the impugned interim order. The interim order granted by the Hon’ble single Judge is set aside. With respect we say that the decision was rendered on the facts of that case. 10. Therefore, we have serious doubts as to whether the Hon’ble single Judge was justified in entertaining the writ petition at this stage and in passing the impugned interim order. The interim order granted by the Hon’ble single Judge is set aside. We, however, take this opportunity to request the Hon’ble single Judge to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by the observations made by us in this order. The observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of disposal of these appeals against the interim order. All issues are kept open. The Returning Officer shall declare the election, but in the process of declaring the election, shall not declare the result of the writ petitioner. The election for the respondent No. 5-Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Limited shall, however, abide by the decision of the Hon’ble single Judge in the writ petition. 11. Mr. Jayakumar Patil, learned senior advocate draws our attention to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 1992 Kant 979 : (AIR 1994 (NOC) 58 (Kar) (Nanjundaswamy v. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies). We have carefully gone through the decision in the case of Nanjundaswamy (supra), delivered by the Full Bench of this Court. There is no quarrel as to the proposition that the High Court has power to interfere with the election dispute in most extraordinary circumstances. It was, also, highlighted that the remedy of an election petition, which has been the remedy that has been normally available in election disputes. Mr. Jayakumar Patil, the learned senior advocate, also, relies on a decision reported in ILR 1969 Kant 734 (S. Nagandoud v. Y. Basi Reddy) to draw our attention to the observations that normally in election matters, the verdict of the electorate has to be respected and given effect to until it has been set aside on any one of the grounds on which the law is permitted to be set aside. 12. In this case, the right to participate in election is in serious dispute. Therefore, at this stage, if we permit the interim order to continue, the situation will become irreversible. 12. In this case, the right to participate in election is in serious dispute. Therefore, at this stage, if we permit the interim order to continue, the situation will become irreversible. More over, the election dispute as against this writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 in these appeals, is pending before the Joint Registrar who has passed an interim order restraining him from participating in elections, which is the subject-matter of the writ petition. 13. The appeals and all interlocutory applications are disposed of. We make no order as to costs. 14. In view of the disposal of the appeals, the interim order dated on July 31, 2015 in these appeals cannot continue further. Order accordingly.