ORDER : SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J. 1. The Petitioners are is before this court seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to follow the provision contained in Rule 13 D(2-A) of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 and conduct the ensuing elections to the Board of Management of 5 th Respondent Union by including the names of the petitioners in the list of Eligible voters and permitting them to contest and cast their votes in the election which is scheduled to be held on 02.02.2025. 2. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The Petitioners are primary Co-operative societies being members of Respondent No.5 - Mandya District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited [‘ Mandya Union ’ for short]. Elections having been announced, a list of eligible and ineligible voters was published, wherein the petitioners’ name was not included in the eligible voters list on account of they not having been attended a minimum two Annual General Body Meetings of the Mandya Union. 3. The calendar of events having been published on 10.01.2025, the date of election was fixed as 02.02.2025, It is in that background that the Petitioners had approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. This Court initially on 22.01.2025 had permitted the Petitioners to cast their votes in the upcoming elections, however, directing the said votes to be kept in a separate ballot box and made the announcement of the result of the elections subject to further orders of this Court. It is in pursuance thereof that the Petitioners have voted at the elections on 02.02.2025. 5. Respondents having been served have entered appearance. 6. During the pendency of the matter an application for impleading was filed by one other co-operative society and the President of the said co-operative society, contending that the Petitioners had suppressed material facts, the proposed Respondent No.7 had contested the election of the Mandya Union and the Petitioners being ineligible members, their votes cannot be taken into consideration. The said application has been opposed by the Petitioners. 7. Thereafter, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be filed on 13.02.2025 seeking for insertion of certain additional grounds in the Petition. The said application has been opposed by the Petitioners. 7. Thereafter, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be filed on 13.02.2025 seeking for insertion of certain additional grounds in the Petition. The Managing Director of the Mandya Union has filed an affidavit indicating that the notices under Rule 13D of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960 [‘ KCS Rules ’ for short] have been issued by RPAD on 02.02.2024, 18.05.2024, 28.06.2024 and the postal receipts thereof have also been produced along with the said affidavit. However, acknowledgement of service has not been produced. The amendment application has been allowed and thereafter, the amended petition has been filed. 8. The impleading applicant has filed his statement of objections to the main petition. Vide order dated 14.02.2025, this Court has observed that the impleading application would be heard along with the main matter. IA No.3 of 2025 has been filed for disposal of the above petition. It is in that background that the above petition was taken up for hearing on 22.04.2025. 9. Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that, 9.1. Certain other matters have been disposed by this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court directing the announcement of results reserving liberty to the aggrieved party to raise a dispute under Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 [‘ KCS Act ’ for short], the very same order could be passed in the present matter and the above matter could be disposed of. 9.2. He also relies upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. B.R. Hemavathi vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Cooperation and others , [WP No.1518/2025] , more particularly, para nos. 5 and 8 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 5. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. B Ganganna and others Vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Co Operation and others (B Ganganna) had given deliberate consideration to the provisions of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 and adjudication of dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘KCS Act, 1959’ for short). The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court framed the following points for consideration at paragraph No.9, which reads as under: “9. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court framed the following points for consideration at paragraph No.9, which reads as under: “9. In the light of the contentions raised, the following questions arise for consideration; (a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable (before the publication of the calendar of events under Rule 14) to redo the voters’ list for violation of Rule 13- D(2- A) of the Rules, 1960, in preparing the eligible and ineligible voters’ list? (b) Whether the authority acting under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959 can decide the validity of the electoral roll vis-à-vis Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960? (c) Whether the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohammad Beary and H.S. Raju supra are per incurium and contrary to the law in Election Commission of India through Secretary supra.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The plain reading of Section 70 makes it clear that an extensive and exhaustive mechanism is provided under the aforesaid Section and the authority under Section 70 can decide the question on the validity of electoral roll prepared under the Rules, 1960 and its impact on the elections, whether the petitioner is the eligible voter and has paid membership dues, or annual general body meetings are attended or availed the minimum services are all questions of fact, which have to be decided under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the electoral roll, the petitioner has not made out any exceptional case in this petition to be entertained and the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B. Ganganna as stated supra is squarely applicable to the present facts and the present petition needs to be disposed of in similar terms and hence, the following: Order Portion 9.3. On the basis of all the above, he submits that the above petition is required to be disposed of by directing declaration of results reserving liberty to the concerned to raise a dispute under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act. 10. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, Sri T. L. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Election Authority, also support the contentions of Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel and submits that; 10.1. 10. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, Sri T. L. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Election Authority, also support the contentions of Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel and submits that; 10.1. Whether the disqualification is valid or otherwise is a matter which would require trial to be conducted, evidence to be led and the same cannot be ascertained in a writ petition. The Petitioners having already voted at the election, the results as to in whose favour not being clear, any aggrieved party could always raise a dispute under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act. 10.2. They submit that the disqualification in the present case, as contended, is on account of Section 20(2)(aiv), on account of the member/representative or a delegate having failed to attend three Annual General Meetings out of the last five General Meetings. In this case, the meetings having been held during the COVID period, the coordinate Bench of this Court have looked at this aspect favourably and not insisted upon the disqualification on account of violation of 20(2)(a-iv). 10.3. They further submit that there is no violation of 20(2)(a-v) alleged against the Petitioners. She relies upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in B.R. Hemavathi vs State of Karnataka & Ors. , [W.P. No. 1518 of 2025] , more particularly para nos. 5, 6, and 8 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 5. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. B Ganganna and others Vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Co Operation and others1 (B Ganganna) had given deliberate consideration to the provisions of Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, 1960 and adjudication of dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘KCS Act, 1959’ for short). The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court framed the following points for consideration at paragraph No.9, which reads as under: “9. In the light of the contentions raised, the following questions arise for consideration; (a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable (before the publication of the calendar of events under Rule 14) to redo the voters’ list for violation of Rule 13- D(2-A) of the Rules, 1960, in preparing the eligible and ineligible voters’ list? (b) Whether the authority acting under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959 can decide the validity of the electoral roll vis-à-vis Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960? (c) Whether the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohammad Beary and H.S. Raju supra are per incurium and contrary to the law in Election Commission of India through Secretary supra.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. The Co-Ordinate Bench after giving deliberate consideration to various judgments has held at paragraph Nos.50 and 51 as under: “50. For the reasons recorded, this Court concludes as under: (a) The preparation of electoral roll under Rule, 13- D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Rules 1960 is an integral part of the election process in the context of a question whether the writ petition is maintainable when the challenge is laid to the procedure initiated for preparing electoral roll. (b) In a dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the Authority under Section 70 can decide the question on the validity of electoral roll prepared under the Rules, 1960 and its impact on the election. (c) The judgments in MOHAMMAD BEARY and H.S.RAJU are not per incurium (d) The writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the electoral roll on the ground of non compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, may lie in exceptional cases. 51. Based on the conclusions arrived at in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no exceptional case is made out in this petition to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the eligible and ineligible voters’ list prepared during the pendency of the petition. Hence, the following: ORDER Writ petition is disposed of on the following terms: (i) The returning officer shall count the votes cast in the election held on 21.01.2024, to the Board of the6th respondent bank, and shall announce the results. (ii) The liberty is reserved to the petitioners or any aggrieved person to raise objections to the validity of the electoral roll in an election petition under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. (ii) The liberty is reserved to the petitioners or any aggrieved person to raise objections to the validity of the electoral roll in an election petition under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. (iii) If such a dispute is raised, the Authority under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, shall examine all questions including the question relating to validity of the eligible and ineligible voters’ list and impact on the election to the Board of the 6 th respondent – Bank. (iv) Nothing is expressed on the merits of the eligible and ineligible voters' list published during the pendency of the petition and said question kept open to be decided in the dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, if raised. ” 8. The plain reading of Section 70 makes it clear that an extensive and exhaustive mechanism is provided under the aforesaid Section and the authority under Section 70 can decide the question on the validity of electoral roll prepared under the Rules, 1960 and its impact on the elections, whether the petitioner is the eligible voter and has paid membership dues, or annual general body meetings are attended or availed the minimum services are all questions of fact, which have to be decided under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the electoral roll, the petitioner has not made out any exceptional case in this petition to be entertained and the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of B. Ganganna as stated supra is squarely applicable to the present facts and the present petition needs to be disposed of in similar terms and hence, the following:Order Portion 10.4. By relying on B.R. Hemavati's case, the submission of Ms. Pratima Honnapura, learned AAG is that the decision in B. Ganganna's case having been considered in B.R. Hemavathi’s case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the counting of votes and announcement of the result, reserving liberty to any aggrieved party to raise a dispute under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act. She therefore submits that both Ganganna's case and B.R. Hemavati's case make it clear that the remedy available to an aggrieved party is one under Section 70(2) and not to agitate the matter before this Court. She therefore submits that both Ganganna's case and B.R. Hemavati's case make it clear that the remedy available to an aggrieved party is one under Section 70(2) and not to agitate the matter before this Court. As such, she submits that this Court may direct for declaration of results reserving liberty to the aggrieved party to raise a dispute under Section 70(2) of KCS Act. 11. Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicant vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the Petitioner, learned AAG and the counsel for the Election Authority and insists that this Court would have to decide on the matter since this Court had permitted the Petitioners to cast their vote in the election and further submits as under: 11.1. As per the affidavit filed by the Society, the requirement of Rule 13D having been complied with, no objection having been filed by the Petitioners as regards their ability or inability to attend the meeting, there was nothing remaining for consideration by the authorities and as such, they have been validly included in the ineligible voters list. 11.2. Therefore, the Petitioners not having availed of the remedy available to them to object to the notice issued under Rule 13D of the KCS Rules, the question of the Petitioners approaching this court and availing of a right to vote at the meeting is not permissible. 11.3. The votes having been kept in a separate box, this Court could well decide whether the Petitioners were eligible voters and thereafter decide whether those votes have to be counted for the purpose of declaration of results. 11.4. He relies upon the decision of this Court in Mullahalli Milk Producers Co-op Society Ltd. And others vs. State of Karnataka and others , [WP No.1590/2025] , more particularly para nos. 2 and 3 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the objections had been submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of a notice issued under clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 2A of Rule 13 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 and the same had not been considered properly. As regards which, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who has considered and passed the order on 26.7.2024 holding that the petitioners to be ineligible. 3. As regards which, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who has considered and passed the order on 26.7.2024 holding that the petitioners to be ineligible. 3. A detailed analysis of the facts having been made by the Deputy Commissioner and on facts it has been found that the petitioners are ineligible members, I am of the considered opinion that the said finding on fact cannot be disturbed in the present proceedings. As such, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. 11.5. By relying on Mullahalli Society’s case, he submits that this Court has held that when an appeal had been filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the societies challenging their inclusion under the ineligible voters list and the Deputy Commissioner on facts had come to a conclusion that they are ineligible, this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by directing the counting of the votes excluding the votes of the Petitioners and as such, he submits that in the present case there being no reply issued to notice under Rule 13, there is nothing required to be considered in the present matter which is worse off than a case which was decided by the Deputy Commissioner and as such, he submits that the decision in Mullahalli Society’s case would be applicable requiring the dismissal of the aforesaid petition with a direction not to count the votes of the Petitioners. 11.6. He relies upon the decision, in B. Ganganna and others vs. State of Karnataka and others , [WP No.29014/2023] , more particularly para no. 50 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 50. For the reasons recorded, this Court concludes as under: (a) The preparation of electoral roll under Rule, 13-D(2- A) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Rules 1960 is an integral part of the election process in the context of a question whether the writ petition is maintainable when the challenge is laid to the procedure initiated for preparing electoral roll. (b) In a dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the Authority under Section 70 can decide the question on the validity of electoral roll prepared under the Rules, 1960 and its impact on the election. (b) In a dispute under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the Authority under Section 70 can decide the question on the validity of electoral roll prepared under the Rules, 1960 and its impact on the election. (c) The judgments in MOHAMMAD BEARY and H.S. RAJU are not per incurium (d) The writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the electoral roll on the ground of non compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, may lie in exceptional cases. 11.7. Relying on Sri. B. Ganganna’s case, he submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that the preparation of the electoral roll under Rule 13D of the KCS Rules is an integral part of the election process and as such, the validity or otherwise can always be decided under Section 70(2)(c) and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can only be exercised in exceptional cases. He submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court has granted liberty to the Petitioners therein to raise any objections to the validity of the electoral roll under Section 70(2)(c) of the KCS Act and has categorically refrained from deciding on the eligibility or ineligibility of the Petitioners therein. As such, he submits, that aspect ought to be left to the decision of the Authority under Section 70(2). 11.8. He relies upon the decision of another coordinate Bench of this court in T. Sampath Kumarachar vs. State of Karnataka and others , [WP No.546/2024] more particularly para no. 10 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 10. As already noticed, this petition is filed subsequent to the publication of calendar of events. This Court has taken a view that the non-compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) itself cannot be a ground to permit the petitioners to vote in the election and that right to vote has to be demonstrated by producing the records to show that the petitioners have fulfilled the requirements under the Provisions of Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act. In this case, the petitioners are not entitled to relief that was granted to the petitioners in H.S.Raju's case supra as the respondent-Society has raised an objection and has taken a stand that the society has issued notice to the petitioners and petitioners have not replied to the said notice. Admittedly, there is no reply to the notices issued. In this case, the petitioners are not entitled to relief that was granted to the petitioners in H.S.Raju's case supra as the respondent-Society has raised an objection and has taken a stand that the society has issued notice to the petitioners and petitioners have not replied to the said notice. Admittedly, there is no reply to the notices issued. Though, there are some defects in the said notices, as this Court has taken a view that non- compliance of Rule 13- D(2-A) by itself will not make the petitioners eligible to vote in the election, the petitioners are not entitled to the order similar to the one granted in H S Raju's case supra. The votes cast by the petitioners cannot be counted while declaring the election. s 11.9. By relying on T. Sampath Kumarachar's case, he again submits that a dispute as regards eligibility or ineligibility would have to be decided under Section 70 of the KCS Act and therefore, this Court also ought not to direct the counting of the votes of the Petitioners while announcing the result. 11.10. His submission is that there being compliance with Rule 13D(2A), the votes cast by the Petitioner cannot be considered. On that basis, he submits that similar orders as that have been passed in B. Ganganna’s case and T. Sampath Kumarachar's case may be passed in the present matter. 12. Heard Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Sri. T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the impleading applicants. Perused papers. 13. The points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are; 1. Whether a dispute raised in relation to the eligible and ineligible voters list published by the society can be considered in a writ petition? 2. Whether in the facts of the present case, there is a requirement to direct the votes cast by the Petitioners to be counted while announcing the result of the election? 3. What Order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. ANSWER TO POINT No.1- Whether a dispute raised in relation to the eligible and ineligible voters list published by the society can be considered in a writ petition? 15.1. 3. What Order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. ANSWER TO POINT No.1- Whether a dispute raised in relation to the eligible and ineligible voters list published by the society can be considered in a writ petition? 15.1. The aspect of whether a dispute as regards eligibility or ineligibility of the voter, as indicated in the voters list published by the society, can be considered by this court or not, has been answered by a Coordinate Bench of this court, in Ganganna's case and T. Sampath Kumarachar's case, wherein this Court has categorically held that such a dispute can only be raised in a dispute under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act and not before the writ court. 15.2. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that a dispute as regards the eligibility or ineligibility of a voter as published in the voters list would have to be considered only in a dispute raised under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act and it is only in exceptional circumstances that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction by way of a writ petition. 16. ANSWER TO POINT No.2: Whether in the facts of the present case, there is a requirement to direct the votes cast by the Petitioners to be counted while announcing the result of the election? 16.1. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Petitioners have been listed under the ineligible voters list on the ground of them not having attended three annual general meetings out of five and as such, have defaulted the requirement of Section 20(2A)(iv). Apart from the said violation, there is no other violation that has been alleged against the Ppetitioners to hold them ineligible to vote at the election. 16.2. The aspect of ineligibility under any other provision would have required trial, insofar as the aspect of ineligibility in this case under Section 20(2aiv), I am of the considered opinion that the same not requiring any oral evidence to be led, the same can be considered on the basis of the documents available on record. 16.3. The society has contended that the requirements of Section 13D(2A) have been complied with. However, the Petitioners did not reply to the same, even though the Petitioners were aware of they being listed in the ineligibility list. 16.4. 16.3. The society has contended that the requirements of Section 13D(2A) have been complied with. However, the Petitioners did not reply to the same, even though the Petitioners were aware of they being listed in the ineligibility list. 16.4. Under normal circumstances, this Court would not have intervened in the matter at hand, except that two of the meetings of the last five meetings have been held during the COVID period and as it is known to one and all, it was difficult during the said COVID period for any person to travel and or attend any meetings and there were also restrictions in relation thereto. The COVID period would have to be considered differently than the normal period and non-attendance of meeting ought not to, in such circumstances, be held against a member so as to hold such member to be ineligible to vote at a meeting which is a democratic right vested in such a member. 16.5. A perusal of the facts in Ganganna's case, indicates that the ineligibility therein was on account of both violation of Section 20(2a-iv) and Section 20(2a-v). Section 20(2a-v) is one which relates to non-availment of services by the member during three of the last five financial co-operative years. 16.6. From a perusal of the facts in Sampath Kumarachar's case, it is not clear as to on what basis the ineligibility was determined, whether it was an account of the violation of Section 20(2a-iv) or 20(2a-v). The decision in Hemavati's case also does not indicate the reason for the ineligibility of the member. 16.7. In the present case, admittedly the ineligibility of the Petitioner is only on account of the violation of Section 20(2aiv) which has been dealt with supra. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that taking into account the COVID pandemic and taking into account that two of the meetings were held during the COVID pandemic, the non- attendance of the meeting by the Petitioners cannot be held to deprive them of exercising their democratic rights. The elections to the Union occurring once in five years, the delegate of the Petitioners who are primary co-operative societies ought to be held to be entitled to vote at the elections of the union so as to exercise their democratic rights. 16.8. The elections to the Union occurring once in five years, the delegate of the Petitioners who are primary co-operative societies ought to be held to be entitled to vote at the elections of the union so as to exercise their democratic rights. 16.8. Hence, I answer point No.2, by holding that in the exceptional situation made out by the Petitioners being unable to attend the Annual General Body Meeting during the COVID pandemic period, the same ought not to be held against the Petitioners. 17. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3: What Order? 17.1. In view of my answers to the above points, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Respondents No.2 and 4 are directed to count the votes cast in the election including the votes of the Petitioners kept in a separate ballot box and announce the results. iii. Since the eligibility or otherwise of the Petitioners has been considered and determined by this Court as regards Section 20(2a-iv), there would be no requirement for raising any dispute under Subsection (2) of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 insofar as the eligibility of the Petitioners are concerned with reference to Section 20(2a-iv). iv. The declaration of results shall be final insofar as the eligibility of the Petitioners are concerned with reference to Section20(2a-iv). v. Liberty is reserved to any other aggrieved party to raise any other issue other than the eligibility of the Petitioners under Section 20(2a-iv) in a proceeding under Subsection (2) of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. 18. The impleading application having been heard, there is no requirement to pass any order on the impleading application.