B GURUMALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) since the facts and circumstances arising in this appeal are not in dispute, we need not refer to the same.

(2.) two contentions have been urged in support of this appeal. Firstly, the election that has taken place pursuant to the calendar of events issued in the year 1984 is illegal as three persons viz., (1) patel lingappa a class member, (2) K. M. Puttaswamy, and (3) karigowda b class members, having filed their nominations pursuant to the said calendar of events died subsequently. Therefore, the election officer ought to have issued fresh calendar of events giving opportunity to those intending to file nominations afresh as required by law. Secondly, the view taken by the learned single judge that when there was a provision for filing an election petition challenging the correctness of the election in question, this court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with such an election, was incorrect and cannot be sustained,

(3.) dealing with the first contention, even though there is no provision in the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the act' for short) corresponding to sections 100 and 101 of the representation of the People Act, 1951 setting out the grounds on which an election to a co-operative society can be set aside, in view of the ruling this court in Channe Gowda V. State of Karnataka, [1975 (2) KLJ 235] it is open to the registrar or the arbitrator to rely as far as possible upon the large volume of judicial precedents under the election law and to decide the disputes relating to election on the basis of justice, equity and good conscience.