AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 – the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, whereby the election petition filed in the form of a dispute under Section 71(1)(A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act, 1959’) has been allowed. By the impugned order, respondent No.3 – the Returning Officer has been directed to conduct a recount of votes within a period of four weeks in respect of a seat reserved for a woman candidate.
Though serious objections have been raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the respondents contending that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 105 of the Act, 1959 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to justify the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has refrained from availing the statutory remedy solely on the ground that the procedure for listing matters before the Appellate Tribunal is inordinately time-consuming and in the absence of immediate relief, the grievance raised in the writ petition is likely to be rendered infructuous. It is therefore urged that this Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and consider granting appropriate interim relief.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the judgment cited in Vijay Bahadur vs. Sunil Kumar and Others in Civil Appeal No.14311/2024 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is evident that the present dispute pertains to a narrow margin of one vote between the petitioner and respondent No.4. The election result indicates that respondent No.4 secured 2906 votes, while the petitioner secured 2907 votes. Notably, a total of 620 votes have been declared invalid. While the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision is binding on this Court, the facts and legal position in the present case do not justify invocation of this Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he was denied the opportunity of being heard during the proceedings before the competent authority. On the contrary, the records indicate that the petitioner was permitted to lead evidence, and based on the materials placed on record, the election dispute was adjudicated. The competent authority, having appreciated the evidence, passed a reasoned order directing recount of votes. The mere fact that the order may be erroneous or adverse to the petitioner does not, by itself, render it amenable to judicial review under Article 226, by passing the statutory appellate mechanism. This Court must emphasize that unless there is a demonstrated breach of fundamental procedural safeguards, such as denial of natural justice or manifest illegality, petitioners cannot be permitted to directly approach this Court while circumventing the remedy of an appeal provided under the statute.
Permitting such recourse not only undermines the legislative intent behind providing a dedicated appellate forum under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, but also contributes to the undue burdening of the writ jurisdiction of constitutional courts. The writ remedy is extraordinary and discretionary, meant to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Entertaining writ petitions where a statutory appellate remedy exists, particularly in matters involving factual disputes and appreciation of evidence, as in the case of election petitions would amount to this Court stepping into the role of an appellate authority, which is impermissible in law.
In the present case, the petitioner has taken the untenable stand at paragraph No.10 of the writ petition that no alternative remedy is available. This contention is wholly misplaced and factually incorrect. An efficacious appellate remedy exists before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Given that the dispute pertains to the declaration of 620 votes as invalid in an election decided by a single vote, it is all the more important that the statutory forum be approached so that the matter can be considered in detail by the appropriate authority empowered under the Act.
In light of the above discussion, this Court finds no justification to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 105 of the Act, 1959. The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail such remedy.
All contentions are left open.