(BY SRI S. S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SMT. MALA D. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

RAMANAGOUDA S/O. BASAPPA BASARADDI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 01. CHANNAPPA S/O. GURAPPA MANAGULI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 02. SANGAYYA S/O. DUNDAYYA MATHA, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 03. RAMAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA MALLI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 04. RAMAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA WALIKARA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 05 RAVI S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 06.

VISHWANATH S/O. SHRISHAIL CHURI. AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 07 VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024

GURURAJ S/O. SIDDAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORTI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 08

MUTTAVVA W/O. SANNAPPA TELAGI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOPPA S.R., TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 10.

BABU S/O. MANASURSAB GARIBANAVAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: DAVALESHWAR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 11.

GIRIYAPPA S/O. TIMMAPPA BUSHAREDDY AGE: 661 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: DAVALESHWAR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 15.

PANDAPPA S/O. GIRIYAPPA BUSHAREDDY AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: DAVALESHWAR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 16.

YAMANAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA CHALAVADI. AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. R/O: DAVALESHWAR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 07.

MAHANTESH S/O. GIRIYAPPA BUSHAREDDY, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DAVALESHWAR, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 20.

CHANDSAB S/O. HASANASAB NADAF, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GIRISAGARA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 34.

VENKANNA S/O. SIDDAPPA DESAI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 51 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024

BHAGIRATHI W/O. BASAVARAJ DESAI. AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 52

SANTOSH S/O. PANDADAPPA ONTI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 53.

DODDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA DESAI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 54.

BASAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA CHIMMADA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 57.

HUCCHAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA DABARI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 59.

YALLAWWA W/O. SANGAPPA MADAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 62.

MUDAKAPPA S/O. BASAPPA MADAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 63.

BASAVARAJ S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA DESAI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024 SL. NO. 64.

KRISHNAPPA S/O: HANAMAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 65.

GURUSIDDAPPA S/O. BASAVARAJ DESAI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SONNA, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, SL. NO. 66 (BY SRI S. S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO- OPERATION M.S .BUILDING BENGALURU- 580 001. THE STATE CO- OPERATIVE ELECTION AUTHORITY 3RD FLOOR, A BLOCK SHANTI NAGAR, T T M C BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. THE ELETION OFFICER, THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES , BAGALKOT REGION AND ABOVE TALUKA LAVE AND BELOW DISTRICT LEVEL AREA OPERATION OF ALL PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAGALKOT, TALUK: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587 101. THE RETURNING OFICER THE BILAGI TALUKA PRATHAMIK SAHAKARI KRUSHI MATTU GRAMEEN ABURVADDI BANK NIYAMIT BILAGI, AND THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES JAMKHANDI SUB-DIVISION JAMKHANDI - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024 TALUK: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587301.

THE BILAGI TALUKA PRATHAMIK SAHAKARI KRUSHI MATTU GRAMEEN ABIRUADDI BANK NIYAMIT BILAGI TALUK: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE PIN: 587116 (BY SMT. MALA D. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 TO INCLUDE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE FINAL ELIGIBLE BORROWER VOTER LIST AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO CAST VOTE IN THE ELECTION TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT BANK SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 15/12/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO DECLARE THE ELECTION RESULTS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ELECTION PROCESS BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: “a) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents no.3 to 5 to include the names of the Petitioners in the final eligible borrower voter list and permit the petitioners to cast vote in the election to the committee of the management of the 5th respondent Bank scheduled to be held on 15/12/2024 vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity. b) To Direct the respondents no.4 to declare the election results after completion of the election process by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity c)

To issue any other order, directions as deems fir in the circumstances of the case.” It is the case of the petitioners that they have been added in the list of ineligible voters and there is violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 13D sub-Rule (2)(a) of the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024 Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Rules, 19601. It is relevant to note here that the total number of voters are 2241 and 766 members have been rendered ineligible.

It is relevant to note that a 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 Others2 after consideration of the various judgments framed the following points for consideration: (a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India is maintainable (before the publication of the calendar of events 70 of 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) le of Rules, 1960? (c) Whether the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court MOHAMMAD BEARY & OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS3 and H.S. RAJU AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS4 are per incurium and contrary to the law in ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS5.” 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ 2 ILR 2024 KAR 1901 3 Writ petition No.29271/2023 & Connected matters 4 2022 (4) AKR 775 5 (2000)8 SCC 216 - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024

3.1 4.1 This Court while answering the said questions has held as follows: “22. On a cursory reading of the above-mentioned provisions, it is evident that the role of the Co-Operative Election Authority under the scheme of the Act, 1959 and the Rules 1960, in conducting the election to the board of a co-operative society is all-pervasive. Right from the stage of preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list till the announcement of results, the Co- Operative Election Authority has a predominant role to play in not only conducting the elections to the board of a co-operative society but also in finalising the electoral roll with reference to right to vote and disqualification to vote. This aspect is to be kept in mind while answering the questions raised in the petition.

26. Having considered the predominant role of the Co- Operative Election Authority right from the stage of preparing the electoral roll, finalising the same after hearing the objections, publication of calendar of events and conducting the elections, and having considered the nature of the vote of member in a co-operative society, before proceeding to answer the question whether there can be a challenge to the electoral roll in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the publication of the calendar of events on the premise that the said roll is published in violation of Rule 13-D(2-A), the Court has to consider if any, statutory remedy is available to question the violation of provisions of the Act, 1959 and the Rules, 1960 in preparing the eligible and ineligible voters' list.

The plain grammatical meaning of expression "any dispute arising in connection with the election" itself makes abundantly clear that the Authority under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act, 1959 can decide any dispute in connection with the election of the members of the board of a co-operative society. In addition, as can be noticed from Section 70(2)(c), unlike the provisions in the enactments like The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and even the Representation of People Act, 1951, which provide for election dispute on specific grounds enumerated in the provision, in Section 70(2)(c), the challenge to the election to the Board of - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024 a co-operative society is not restricted to certain specific grounds. Thus, there can be no room for any doubt whatsoever that the Section 70(2)(c) of Act, 1959 is wide enough to cover all questions in connection with Section 20 (a-iv) (a-v) and Rule 13-D (2-A) referred to above.

However, a word of caution is needed here. The right to vote and the disqualification to vote in the election to the board of the co-operative society is not just dependent on the procedure to be followed under Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules. The right to vote or ineligibility to vote depends on the members meeting, the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 20(a-iv) and (a-v). Non-compliance with mandatory procedures prescribed under Rule 13-D(2-A) for preparation of voters’ list ipso facto will not make the ineligible voter, eligible to vote. Eligibility to vote is also required to be demonstrated. It is quite possible that even if Rule 13-D92-A) is not followed, the list may conform to Section 20(a-iv) and (a-v) of the Act, 1959. Thus, apart from demonstrating that the Rule 130D is not complied, the member has to demonstrate that the is eligible to vote but should also demonstrate that the faulty voters’ list made and impact on the election results.

It is also relevant to note that non-compliance of some part of Rule 13-D(2-A), may close the window provided to repay the dues within the time fixed under Rule 13-D(2-A). It will take away the opportunity to be an eligible voter or an opportunity to contest. Losing a chance to contest an election if the nomination paper is rejected on the premise that the candidate's name is not in the electoral roll can also be questioned under Section 70 of the Act, 1959.

Admittedly, Section 70(2)(c) does not specify the grounds on which an election to the board of a co- operative society can be set aside. Assuming that there is a vacuum as to what kind of relief can be granted under Section 70(2)(c), applying the principles contained in Section 100(1)(d-iv) of Act of 1951, and following the ratio in T.S.PATIL vs. THE J.R.C.S. AND OTHERS6 and CHANNE GOWDA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS7 and HAYAT BEIG vs. MUNIVENKATE GOWDA AND OTHERS8, the 6 ILR 2007 KAR 491 7 1975 (2) Kar.L.J.235 8 (1972) 1 Mys.L.J.121 - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024 non-compliance of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 can be read as a ground available under Section 70(2)(c) of Act, 1959 to challenge the election to the board of a co- operative society. Thus, the Authority under Section 70 of the Act, 1959 can also look into the violation of the provisions of the Act, 1959 and Rules, 1960, applicable to the election to the board of a co-operative society. If, it is established that the electoral roll is prepared in violation of the mandatory rules and that the result of the election is affected on account of faulty electoral roll, then, the Authority under the Act is competent to pass an appropriate order on the election by assessing the impact of faulty electoral roll on the outcome of the election. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the judgment rendered in T S PATIL5 does not come to the aid of the petitioners. On the other hand, the principle laid down in the said judgment will enable the Authority under Section 70 to examine the violation of Rule 13-D(2-A) of Rules, 1960 as well.

Whether the preparation of the electoral roll is part of an election is the question answered by the Apex Court in SHRI SANT SADGURU JANARDAN SWAMI (MOINGIRI MAHARAJ) SAHAKARI DURGHA UTPADAK SANSTHA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS9. The Apex Court has analyzed the scheme of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules concerning the preparation of the electoral roll and the process of filing objections to the ineligible voter's list. The Apex Court has taken the view that the preparation of the electoral roll is also an intermediate stage in the election.

The provisions of the Rules, 1960, in so far as the conduct of elections are complete code in itself. The said judgment is indeed rendered interpreting the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act and Rules. It is also true that the procedures under the said Act and Rules in preparing the electoral roll are different from the one provided in the Act, 1959 and Rules, 1960. However, the fact that both enactments provide an adjudicatory mechanism before finalizing the final electoral roll and also the fact that an independent authority other than the co-operative society is assigned with the role of preparing the electoral rolls and conducting elections, the underlying philosophy in both Rules in so far as conducting elections to the board of a co-operative society is by and large the same. 9 (2001) 8 SCC 509 - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024

In the light of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that as a general principle, the writ petition to challenge the electoral roll published for holding elections to the board of a co-operative society is not maintainable. However, this Court is not holding that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is completely ruled out. There may be situations, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, the High Court in the exercise of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may have to step into avert a total miscarriage of justice in preparing the electoral roll. It is not desirable to spell out those circumstances in this petition. Suffice it to say that the facts obtained in this petition do not warrant such exercise.

as under: For the reasons recorded, this Court concludes (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 BEARY2 and H.S. RAJU3 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.” (emphasis supplied)

4. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that the petitioners have failed to make an exceptional case as held by - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18141 WP No. 107567 of 2024 this Court in the case of Sri B. Ganganna and Others and the present case is not one where a total miscarriage of justice is made out.

5. Hence, the above writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy as provided under Section 70 of the Act. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SSP/CT-ASC List No.: 11 Sl No.: 8