Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Gopalkrishna Bhat, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, challenging Resolution No. 10 and 13 dated 08/08/2025 issued by the 5th respondent, Idagundi Vivedoddesh Prathamik Grameen Krushi Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, and the voter list published by respondents 3 and 4 (Deputy Commissioner and Canara District Central Co-op Bank Limited) insofar as it related to the 6th respondent, Shivarama Mahabaleswar Hebbar. The petitioner sought a declaration that the 6th respondent was not eligible or qualified to be a delegate from the 5th respondent to represent and vote in the election process of the 4th respondent bank. The court examined the bye-laws of the 5th respondent society and found that the 6th respondent was not a member of that society and therefore could not be nominated as a delegate. The impugned resolution and voter list were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Election Dispute - Bye-law Interpretation - Resolution No. 10 and 13 dated 08/08/2025 and voter list challenged - Petitioner contended that the 6th respondent was not a member of the 5th respondent society and thus ineligible to be a delegate - Court held that the resolution and voter list were in violation of the society's bye-laws and principles of natural justice - Quashed the impugned resolution and voter list to the extent they included the 6th respondent (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resolution of the 5th respondent society and the voter list published by respondents 3 and 4 are valid and whether the 6th respondent is eligible to be a delegate for the election of the Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Limited.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned Resolution No. 10 and 13 dated 08/08/2025 issued by the 5th respondent and the voter list published by respondents 3 and 4 insofar as it relates to the 6th respondent are quashed. The 6th respondent is declared not eligible to be a delegate from the 5th respondent.
Law Points
- Co-operative society elections
- Bye-law interpretation
- Voter list eligibility
- Natural justice
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 72
WP No. 107047 of 2025 (CS-EL/M)
Anand Mandagi (Senior Counsel for Shivaraj P. Mudhol, Advocate) for Petitioner; Gangadhar J.M. (AAG along with Ramesh B. Chigari, AGA) for R1 and R3; G.V. Bharmagoudar for R2; Vishwanth Hegde for R4; Ashok Haranahalli (Senior Counsel for A.P. Hegde Janmane) for C/R5; Jayakumar S. Patil (Senior Counsel for Vijay Malali) for R6
Shankar S/o. Gopalkrishna Bhat
State of Karnataka, Co-operative Election Authority, Deputy Commissioner Uttara Kannada, Canara District Co-operative Bank Limited, Idagundi Vivedoddesh Prathamik Grameen Krushi Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, Shivarama Mahabaleswar Hebbar, Shri Shivarama Mahabaleswar Bhat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging resolution and voter list in co-operative society election
Remedy Sought
Quashing of Resolution No. 10 and 13 dated 08/08/2025 and voter list, and declaration that 6th respondent is not eligible to be a delegate
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the 6th respondent was not a member of the 5th respondent society and thus ineligible to be a delegate for the election of the 4th respondent bank
Issues
Whether the impugned resolution and voter list are valid under the bye-laws of the 5th respondent society?
Whether the 6th respondent is eligible to be a delegate from the 5th respondent society?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the 6th respondent was not a member of the 5th respondent society and therefore could not be nominated as a delegate.
Respondents argued in support of the resolution and voter list.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who is not a member of a co-operative society cannot be nominated as a delegate to represent that society in elections. Any resolution or voter list to the contrary is invalid and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned resolution and voter list are in violation of the bye-laws of the 5th respondent society and principles of natural justice.
The 6th respondent is not a member of the 5th respondent society and thus cannot be a delegate.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed WP No. 107047 of 2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad. The court heard arguments and delivered judgment on 26 September 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
