Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking inclusion of their names in the eligible voters’ list for the election to the Managing Committee of a co-operative bank. The court held that disputes related to voter eligibility are to be addressed under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (KCS Act). The court concluded that the petitioners did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Facts
The petitioners claimed to be members of a co-operative bank and asserted that:
- They had paid all dues required for membership or shareholding.
- They attended all annual general body meetings whenever notified by the co-operative bank.
- Despite their compliance with the eligibility requirements under Rule 13-D of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1960 (KCS Rules), their names were unjustly omitted from the eligible voters’ list for the elections scheduled on January 19, 2025.
The petitioners alleged that the co-operative bank had overlooked the procedural safeguards stipulated under Rule 13-D while preparing the voter list.
Issues
The High Court identified the following key legal issues for resolution:
- Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226:
Whether the petitioners could invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge the preparation of the electoral roll without showing exceptional circumstances. - Jurisdiction under Section 70 of the KCS Act:
Whether disputes concerning voter eligibility fall exclusively within the scope of Section 70 of the KCS Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that:
- Their exclusion from the eligible voters’ list violated Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, which governs the preparation of voter lists for co-operative societies.
- They satisfied all requirements, including payment of dues and participation in general body meetings, yet were arbitrarily excluded by the co-operative bank.
- The flawed preparation of the voter list deprived them of their right to vote in the election.
- Exceptional circumstances existed that justified judicial interference under Article 226.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents countered by arguing:
- The preparation of voter lists is part of the election process, and disputes regarding voter eligibility should be resolved under the statutory framework provided by Section 70 of the KCS Act.
- The petitioners failed to demonstrate any exceptional grounds justifying the High Court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Rule 13-D was followed while preparing the voter list, including the publication of ineligible voters and the resolution of objections.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court analyzed Rule 13-D of the KCS Rules, which outlines the process for preparing and publishing voter lists for co-operative societies. Key aspects of the rule include:
- Draft List of Ineligible Voters:
The chief executive of the co-operative society must identify ineligible members, including those who fail to meet the criteria for attendance or utilization of services. Notices must be issued to these members, allowing them to file objections. - Final List of Eligible Voters:
A list of eligible voters must be published at least 15 days prior to the election date, incorporating any changes resulting from resolved objections.
The court held that disputes regarding compliance with these procedures involve questions of fact, which are best resolved by the authority under Section 70 of the KCS Act, rather than through writ jurisdiction.
Precedent Analysis
The court referred to the decision in Sri B. Ganganna & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others (ILR 2024 KAR 1901), which dealt with similar issues. In that case, the High Court concluded that:
- The preparation of electoral rolls is integral to the election process.
- Disputes regarding the validity of electoral rolls should be resolved under Section 70 of the KCS Act, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
- Writ jurisdiction should only be invoked in rare cases where the statutory remedy is inadequate or unavailable.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned as follows:
- No Exceptional Circumstances:
The petitioners did not demonstrate any exceptional grounds that warranted bypassing the statutory remedy under Section 70 of the KCS Act. Judicial intervention under Article 226 is limited to exceptional cases. - Statutory Remedy under Section 70:
Section 70 of the KCS Act provides an exhaustive mechanism for resolving disputes related to the election process, including the preparation of voter lists. Questions such as whether the petitioners paid dues, attended meetings, or fulfilled service requirements are factual disputes that must be resolved by the authority under Section 70. - Deference to Statutory Framework:
The court emphasized the principle that election-related disputes should generally be resolved through the statutory mechanism, to avoid interfering with the electoral process.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and passed the following directives:
- The Returning Officer was instructed to count the votes cast in the election held on January 19, 2025, and announce the results.
- Liberty was granted to the petitioners or any aggrieved party to file an election petition under Section 70(2) of the KCS Act to challenge the electoral roll’s validity.
- All questions regarding the eligibility or ineligibility of voters were left open for adjudication under Section 70.
The court explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the voter eligibility dispute.
Implications
The judgment reinforces the principle that election-related disputes, including challenges to voter lists, should be resolved through the statutory mechanism provided by the KCS Act. It underscores the need to avoid judicial intervention in the electoral process unless exceptional circumstances are shown. This decision provides clarity on the scope of writ jurisdiction in election matters and affirms the exhaustive framework provided under Section 70 of the KCS Act.
