Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a member of Vittal Grameena Sahakari Bank Limited, a primary cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. He sought to quash an unnumbered, undated endorsement issued by the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper for the backward category-A (OBC) in the upcoming elections for the bank's board of directors, scheduled for 09.03.2025. The petitioner had submitted two sets of nomination papers on 01.03.2025, one under the general category and another under the backward community category, both endorsed by one Shi. Tammayya Gowda P., a member of the bank. On 02.03.2025, the petitioner withdrew his general category nomination and requested consideration of only his OBC category nomination. However, the Returning Officer rejected the OBC nomination on the ground that the same member had endorsed two nomination papers. The petitioner contended that since both nominations were for himself, the endorsement was for a single candidate, making the rejection illegal and motivated by malafides to facilitate an uncontested election. During the pendency of the petition, the election was held and the sole candidate in the OBC category was declared elected unopposed. The petitioner then amended his petition to also challenge the declaration of results. The legal issue centered on whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction despite the existence of an alternative remedy by way of an election petition. The petitioner's counsel relied on the Division Bench decision in L. Ramakrishnappa v. Presiding Officer (1991 SCC Online Kar 423), which held that under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere in election matters of statutory bodies if violation of law is established, and that in exceptional cases where illegality is patent, does not involve disputed facts, and interference is necessary to prevent abuse of power, the court may entertain a writ petition even if an election petition is available. The counsel argued that the rejection suffered from such patent illegality and malafides. The respondents informed the court that the results had been declared. The court reserved orders on 04.04.2025 and pronounced a CAV order on 17.04.2025. The provided text of the judgment ends abruptly after setting out the petitioner's arguments and the excerpt from the precedent; the court's analysis, reasoning, and final decision are not included in the excerpt, rendering the ultimate determination unknown.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Cooperative Societies - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950 - The petition raised the question whether the High Court should interfere in a cooperative society election process despite alternative remedy; the court considered the parameters laid down in L. Ramakrishnappa v. Presiding Officer, 1991 SCC Online Kar 423, emphasizing that in exceptional cases of patent illegality without disputed facts, interference is justified to prevent abuse of power; the judgment text ends before the court's analysis and final order, leaving the outcome undetermined (Paras 6.4, 20-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the rejection of nomination and election result in a cooperative society election, given the existence of an alternative remedy by way of election petition, and whether the rejection was illegal
Law Points
- Under Article 226
- High Court has jurisdiction to interfere in election matters of statutory bodies even if alternative remedy exists
- if violation of law established
- However
- as a general rule
- court will not entertain such petitions if effective alternative remedy exists
- In exceptional cases where illegality is patent
- no disputed facts
- and to prevent abuse of power and inconvenience
- interference is warranted
- Illegal acceptance of nomination does not normally constitute substantial injury
- election can be set aside only if result materially affected
