Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 157 (KAR)

Ambareesha v. State of Karnataka

2024-02-20

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, learned advocate appearing for the Co-operative Election Authority and learned advocate appearing for the respondent-society. 2. This writ petition is essentially filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to include the names of the petitioners in the final eligible voters' list and permit the petitioners to vote and contest in the election to the board of respondent - society which was scheduled on 21.01.2024. 3. This Court by way of interim order permitted the petitioners to cast vote and permitted to file nomination paper to contest in the said election. However, the result of the election was withheld. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the mandatory requirements of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 have not been followed while preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list. Thus, it is urged that the petitioners should be treated as eligible voters' and their votes need to be counted as valid votes. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - Society disputes the claim of the petitioners and contends that requirements of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1960' for short) are followed and majority of the petitioners are not the members of the society. 6. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, this Court in the case of H S Raju And Others v. State Of Karnataka And Others (2022(4) AKR 775) has permitted the votes to be counted and the election results to be announced keeping open all other contentions to be adjudicated in appropriate forum under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1959' for short). 7. It is relevant to note that merely because the petitioners were permitted to contest and vote in the election to the board of the respondent-society, it does not mean that all the petitioners had the eligibility to contest and vote in the election. It is quite possible that all or some had the eligibility to contest and vote or may had incurred disqualification to contest and vote. It is quite possible that all or some had the eligibility to contest and vote or may had incurred disqualification to contest and vote. Merely because procedures contemplated under Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 are not followed, it does not mean that the disqualification if any incurred, is cured. Whether the petitioners did incur the disqualification to contest and vote or not, is a question of fact. Same is to be decided in a proceeding under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959. 8. Admittedly, the writ petition is filed post publication of calendar of events. Under these circumstances, this Court has to follow the ratio laid down in the case of Mohammad Beary & Others v. The State Of Karnataka & Others (Writ Petition No.29271/2023 & Connected matters). In the said proceeding, this Court has taken a view that the writ petition challenging the electoral roll post publication of calendar of events is not permissible. 9. The law laid down in H S Raju's case supra cannot be made applicable in this petition as the respondent-society is disputing the claim made by the petitioners which was not the case in H S Raju supra. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) Returning Officer shall announce the results of the election to the Board of 4th respondent - Society held on 21.01.2024 by excluding the votes cast by the petitioners. (iii) The petitioners who have contested the election pursuant to the interim order cannot be treated as the candidates in the fray. (iv) If any person entitled to raise a dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, raises a dispute under the said provision questioning the election results, the said dispute shall be decided without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition. It is made clear that this Court has not given any finding on the eligibility/ineligibility of the petitioners to contest and vote in the election to the board of the respondent-society. (v) The question as to the eligibility/ineligibility of the petitioners to contest and vote in the election is kept open to be decided in a dispute if any, raised in this regard. (v) The question as to the eligibility/ineligibility of the petitioners to contest and vote in the election is kept open to be decided in a dispute if any, raised in this regard. (vi) If any such dispute relating to the eligibility/ineligibility of the petitioners to contest and vote in the election to the board of respondent-society is raised, all relevant questions concerning the correctness of eligible and ineligible voters' list and non-compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 and its effect on the election shall be considered. (vii) The ballot papers containing the votes cast by the petitioners shall be kept in a separate sealed box after counting. (viii) While counting the votes cast by the petitioners, a separate list shall be prepared disclosing the number of votes cast by the petitioners in favour of the candidates. Said list shall be separately maintained and be furnished to the authority, if summoned, while hearing election dispute in case such dispute is raised. If the dispute is raised, same shall be decided within six months from the date of presentation of the petition. (ix) If the election dispute is raised by the petitioners, same shall be considered in accordance with law within four months from the date of filing of election petition. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A. 1/2024 for impleading, does not survive for consideration. .