Karnataka High Court Orders Immediate Resumption of Halted Co-operative Society Elections, Extends Board’s Term, and Imposes Costs on Election Officials for Negligence and Legal Malice”

Court’s Decision:

The High Court directed that:

1. The halted election process of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society should resume from where it was paused. The Returning Officer and Election Officer were instructed to complete the process in strict compliance with Rule 13-D(3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960.
2. The current Board’s term was extended until elections are completed, ensuring the society’s management continuity.
3. Costs of ₹50,000 each were imposed on the Election Officer and Returning Officer, payable personally to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, for failing to fulfill their statutory duties, leading to delays.

Facts of the Case:

1. Background of the Petitioner: The petitioner is a co-operative society whose Board’s term was set to expire on February 2, 2025. The society sought timely elections to ensure uninterrupted management.
2. Petitioner’s Compliance:
   • Issued statutory notices to ineligible voters as per Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules.
   • Submitted required documents to the authorities and informed the Election Officer six months in advance about the expiration of the Board’s term, as per Section 39AA(15)(a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
3. Appointment of Election Officials: The District Election Officer appointed a Returning Officer and a Scrutiny Officer to oversee the elections. However, despite these appointments, the election process was delayed, leading to the petitioner approaching the court.

Issues for Determination:

1. Did the Election Officer and Returning Officer fail to discharge their statutory duties in conducting the petitioner-society’s elections?
2. Should the term of the existing Board be extended due to the failure to conduct elections within the prescribed time?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioner asserted that the delay in conducting elections was due to deliberate inaction by the Election and Returning Officers, amounting to legal malice.
2. It argued that all procedural requirements, including issuing notices to ineligible voters and submitting documents, were met.
3. The petitioner emphasized that the failure of authorities to conduct elections not only violated statutory provisions but also deprived the society of its rights.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory requirements, particularly Rule 13-D(2-A), related to preparing the voters’ list.
2. They claimed that elections could not be completed on time due to procedural delays and that a minimum of 120 days was required to finalize the electoral process.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 28B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act: This mandates that elections must be conducted before the Board’s term expires. Failure to do so disqualifies the existing Board members from contesting future elections for five years.
2. Rule 13-D(2-A) of the Rules: Lays out detailed steps for preparing the voters’ list, including issuing notices to ineligible voters, allowing objections, and finalizing the list.
3. Obligations on Election Officers: The law requires that Election Officers act promptly to ensure elections are held within the stipulated timeframe. The Court noted that the petitioner complied with its responsibilities, but the Election and Returning Officers failed to act, causing delays.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad (2006):
   • Held that elections must be conducted within the prescribed timeframe, and authorities cannot delay the process due to vested interests.
   • Stressed that electoral processes should not be postponed based on administrative inefficiencies.
2. Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010):
   • Defined “legal malice” as deliberate acts done without lawful justification or reasonable cause.
   • Such actions violate statutory obligations and rights.
3. Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami v. State of Maharashtra (2001):
   • Held that preparation of the voters’ list is an intermediate stage in the election process and cannot be stalled.
   • Suggested that any grievances related to elections should be addressed through an election petition after results are declared.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Compliance by the Petitioner: The Court found that the petitioner-society fulfilled all its statutory obligations, including timely submission of notices and documents, and informed the authorities well in advance about the expiry of its Board’s term.
2. Failure of Authorities: Despite these efforts, the Election Officer and Returning Officer failed to act within the mandated timeframe, violating the provisions of the Act and Rules.
3. Legal Malice: The Court attributed the delay to legal malice, noting that the officers’ inaction was deliberate and aimed at creating a situation requiring the appointment of an administrator for the society.
4. Accountability: By imposing costs on the Election and Returning Officers, the Court emphasized the importance of accountability in the electoral process.

Conclusion:

1. The Court directed the Election and Returning Officers to resume the election process from where it was halted and complete it in accordance with the law.
2. The current Board’s term was extended until elections are concluded to ensure continuity in management.
3. Costs were imposed on the Election Officer and Returning Officer to deter such dereliction of duty in the future.

Implications:

1. Timely Elections: The judgment reinforces the statutory requirement for conducting elections within the prescribed timeframe, ensuring democratic processes in co-operative societies are upheld.
2. Accountability: The imposition of costs on officers serves as a warning against negligence and misuse of statutory powers.
3. Legal Malice: The ruling clarifies the concept of legal malice, emphasizing that administrative actions must be fair, lawful, and in good faith.
4. Judicial Oversight: The decision highlights the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of co-operative societies and ensuring compliance with electoral laws.

Also Read – Karnataka High Court Upholds No-Confidence Motion Against Gram Panchayat Adhyaksha: Rules That Stating Reasons is Not Mandatory Under Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993