Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Keshava Gowda C.H., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking to quash the election notice dated 20.02.2015 issued by the Returning Officer (respondent no.6) for the election to the Managing Committee of respondent no.5 Society, Guthigaru Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (N). The election was scheduled for 8th March 2015, only three days after the filing of the petition. The petitioner contended that the election process was flawed and sought the court's interference. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Assistant Registrar, the Society, the Returning Officer, and a Senior Auditor. The court, presided over by Justice H.G. Ramesh, heard the matter on 5th March 2015. The petitioner's counsel argued that the court could interfere in election matters under its writ jurisdiction, relying on two authorities. However, the court observed that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, which provides for an election petition to challenge the election. The court noted that the election was imminent and that the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner could pursue the alternative remedy of filing an election petition after the election. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and left all contentions open for the petitioner to raise in the appropriate forum.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Interference in Election Process - Petitioner sought quashing of election notice for cooperative society election scheduled three days ahead - Court held that efficacious alternative remedy of election petition under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is available - Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable - Held that High Court should not interfere in election process when alternative remedy exists (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the election process of a cooperative society when an alternative remedy of election petition is available under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of election petition under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. All contentions are left open.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Election dispute
- Writ jurisdiction
- Cooperative societies
- Interference in election process
