Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, K T Nijalingappa and B Krishnamurthy, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. They sought to quash part of the calendar of events issued by the third respondent (Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies) on 14.12.2011, insofar as it related to the election of the Challakere Taluk Agriculture Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, the society itself, and several individuals who were impleaded later. The petitioners argued that the election calendar was flawed and sought the court's intervention to set aside the election process. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the election process had already commenced and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of filing an election petition under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The court held that it would not be appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction to stall the election process. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to avail the remedy of election petition if they were aggrieved by the election results.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Election Process - Interference by Writ Court - The petitioners challenged the calendar of events for election to the Challakere Taluk Agriculture Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. The court held that once the election process has commenced, it should be allowed to conclude and the remedy of election petition under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 is available to the petitioners to raise their grievances. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - The court reiterated that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily interfere with the election process when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The petitioners were directed to avail the remedy of election petition. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions challenging the calendar of events for election to a co-operative society should be entertained when the election process has already commenced and alternative remedy of election petition is available.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are directed to avail the remedy of election petition if they are aggrieved by the election results.
Law Points
- Election process once commenced must be allowed to conclude
- Remedy of election petition is available
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to stall election process
