logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 147 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi)
Case No : Writ Appeal Nos. 200052, 200053 Of 2026 (CS-EL/M)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
Parties : Raju Hipparagi Versus The State Of Karnataka, Department Of Co-Operation, Bangalore & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: D.R. Ravishankar, Senior Advocate, Sandeep Vijaykumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R4 & R6, T.R. Maya, HCGP, R8 & R9, Amaresh S. Roja, Siddaling Reddy, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 12-02-2026
Head Note :-
Karnataka High Court Act - Section 4 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC-K 1401,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This WA is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the interim order dated 09.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.200591/2026 by the learned Single Judge and etc.

This WA is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying set aside the interim order dated 09.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.200590/2026 by the learned Single Judge and etc.)

Oral Judgment

R. Nataraj, J.

1. These two appeals are filed challenging an interim order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200591/2026 and W.P.No.200590/2026.

2. Briefly put, the facts as pleaded in the writ appeals are that some members of the respondent No.5 were treated as ineligible to vote at the elections to the managing committee of the respondent No.5 scheduled on 15.02.2026. Those ineligible members initiated proceedings under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'the KCS Act, 1959') challenging their inclusion in the ineligible voters list and exclusion from the eligible voters list. An interim order was granted by the officer under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959 permitting those ineligible members to vote at the elections and the votes so cast were ordered to be kept in a separate ballot box by the returning officer, till the disposal of the case. This order was stayed by the Regional Commissioner. As a consequence, those ineligible members whose names appeared in the ineligible voters list were excluded from the voters list and their nominations were rejected. This rejection was challenged before a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.200591/2026 and W.P.No.200590/2026. The learned Single Judge in terms of an interim order dated 09.02.2026 permitted those ineligible members to cast their votes in the election scheduled on 15.02.2026 and in the same vein held that the results of the election shall not be declared without the leave of the Court.

3. The appellants herein contends that they are contesting the election scheduled on 15.02.2026 and that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the votes cast by the ineligible members to be kept in a separate ballot box, so that in the event the writ petitions are dismissed, those votes could be excluded from the counting process. They therefore contend that the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge should be fortified by holding that the votes cast by those ineligible members shall be kept in a separate ballot box.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants reiterated the above submission and submitted that the votes cast by the above ineligible members should be separately kept so as to maintain clarity and to take necessary steps after disposal of the writ petitions.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 and 9 however contends that the appellants have no locus standi to file these writ appeals as they were not parties before the learned Single Judge as well as before the authorities under Section 70 of the KCS Act, 1959. He therefore contends that no indulgence can be shown to the appellants in these appeals.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.8 and 9.

7. The relief sought for in these appeals is very innocuous as the learned Single Judge while permitting the ineligible members to cast their votes had also held that the results of the election shall not be declared. However, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the votes so cast to be kept in a separate ballot box, so that the same could be discerned after the disposal of the writ petitions, and could be excluded in case the writ petitions were dismissed. Therefore, the apprehension of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that if the votes are inextricably mixed up, it would be difficult for identifying the votes cast by those ineligible members.

8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 that the appellants have no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is relevant to note that the appellants are contestants in the election scheduled on 15.02.2026. In the event, the votes cast by the ineligible voters are mixed up, then it would be well-nigh impossible to identify the votes so cast. This could also result in vitiating the elections and may result in conducting fresh election. Therefore, the appellants have some semblance of a locus standi to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge to a limited extent.

9. Hence these two writ appeals are disposed off holding that the votes cast by the ineligible members at the elections to the managing committee of respondent No.5 scheduled on 15.02.2026 pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2026 in W.P.No.200591/2026 and W.P. No.200590/2026 shall be kept in a separate ballot box.

10. It is needless to mention, in case, if the appellants herein files an application before the learned Single Judge for impleading, their locus standi to contest the writ petitions shall be decided independently.
 
  CDJLawJournal