High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petitions Challenging Election Notification for Cooperative Societies — Election Process Once Notified Cannot Be Interfered With. Non-Compliance with Section 28A of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, is a Ground for Election Petition, Not for Stay of Election.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 87
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, various Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, challenged the election notification issued by the State Election Commission for Cooperative Societies for the election of directors to the Mysore Chamarajanagar District Central Co-operative Bank and the Kolar District Central Co-operative Bank. The petitioners contended that the election notification was issued without complying with Section 28A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, which requires the State Government to specify the number of wards and the number of members to be elected from each ward. They argued that the election process should be stayed until the government complies with the provision. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and the State Election Commission, argued that the election process had already been notified and should not be interfered with, and that the petitioners' grievances could be raised in an election petition after the election. The court, after hearing arguments, held that once the election notification is issued, the election process should not be stalled. The court observed that the remedy for any violation of the Act or Rules lies in an election petition after the election is concluded. The court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the election process to continue.

Headnote

A) Cooperative Law - Election Process - Interference by Courts - Once election notification is issued, courts should not interfere with the election process - The court held that the election process once set in motion should not be stalled, and the remedy lies in election petition after the election is over (Paras 10-12).

B) Cooperative Law - Section 28A of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 - Wards System - The provision mandates that the State Government may specify the number of wards and the number of members to be elected from each ward for cooperative societies - The court examined whether the election notification complied with this provision (Paras 5-9).

C) Cooperative Law - Rule 13 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 - Representation of Members - The rule provides for the manner of representation of members in the election of cooperative societies - The court considered the applicability of this rule to the election in question (Paras 6-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the election notification issued by the State Election Commission for Cooperative Societies is valid despite non-compliance with Section 28A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, and whether the court should interfere with the election process once it has been notified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the election process once notified should not be interfered with, and the remedy for any violation lies in an election petition after the election.

Law Points

  • Election process once notified cannot be interfered with
  • Section 28A of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act
  • 1959
  • Rule 13 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules
  • 1960
  • Wards system for cooperative elections
  • Representation of members in cooperative elections
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (KAR) (11) 7

W.P.Nos.46689-692/2013 and connected matters

2013-11-07

B.S.Patil

Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Sr.Counsel for Sri Deviprasad Shetty, Adv. for petitioners; Sri A.G.Shivanna, AAG for R1 to R5; Sri R.S.Ravi, Adv. for R6

N.Begur Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. and others

State of Karnataka and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging election notification for cooperative societies

Remedy Sought

Stay of election process and quashing of election notification

Filing Reason

Alleged non-compliance with Section 28A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959

Issues

Whether the election notification is valid despite non-compliance with Section 28A of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 Whether the court should interfere with the election process once it has been notified

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the election notification was issued without complying with Section 28A of the Act, which requires the State Government to specify the number of wards and the number of members to be elected from each ward. Respondents argued that the election process had already been notified and should not be interfered with, and that the petitioners' grievances could be raised in an election petition after the election.

Ratio Decidendi

Once the election notification is issued, the election process should not be stalled. Any grievance regarding non-compliance with the Act or Rules can be raised in an election petition after the election is concluded.

Judgment Excerpts

Once the election notification is issued, the election process should not be interfered with. The remedy for any violation of the Act or Rules lies in an election petition after the election is concluded.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the election notification issued by the State Election Commission for Cooperative Societies. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petitions on 7th November 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959: Section 28A
  • Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960: Rule 13
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal as Indigent Person in Motor Accident Claim — Mere Entitlement to Compensation Does Not Disentitle Indigent Status. Court holds that an award holder who has not actually received compensation cannot be denied permission t...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismissed Appeal in Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act Case; Oral Tenancy Claim Failed for Lack of Lawful Possession. Revenue records made without notice to landlord and absence of rent acceptance defeated deemed tenancy under Sec...