G S SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned Single Judge on the two writ petitions disposing them off on 9-4-2001. Though we have heard the appellants' learned Counsel and the learned Government Advocate very briefly with regard to the merits, we have taken cognisance of the observation made by the learned Single judge that the correct forum to decide the disputed issues would be the one set up under the Co-operative Societies Act to decide an election dispute. Mr. Rajagopal submitted that the interim orders specify that everything that took place was subject to final orders which this Court would pass and that consequently, that it was within the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to have decided the disputed issues which he ought to have done. We have taken note of the fact that in so doing it would have been necessary to go into the disputed questions of fact which the learned Single Judge could not have done in exercise of the writ jurisdiction and consequently his having directed the appellants to prefer an election dispute if they so desire, is an order which cannot really be called into question,

(2.) MR. Rajagopal who represents the appellants pointed out to us that there was valid reason why the appellants preferred these appeals and that this should not preclude the filing of an election dispute because section 70-A prescribes a limitation of 30 days which has already elapsed. We clarify that since the appellants were prosecuting the appeal remedy that the limitation of 30 days would run from the date of disposal of these appeals, namely, from today and that the bar of limitation would not hinder the appellants from preferring an election dispute.

(3.) NEXT, what was pointed out to us was that there was some factual dispute with regard to the aspect of area of operation and jurisdiction. We clarify that as is normal the appellants are free to approach the forum which according to them is the right forum and if for any reason it transpires that the dispute is required to be preferred before some other officer after hearing the parties that it is always open to have the proceedings transferred, if the law so requires. Lastly, the submission canvassed was that if the election dispute were to drag on for abnormally long that it would render the entire proceedings infructuous. This is a valid submission and we accordingly direct that in the event of the election dispute being filed within the prescribed period of time that the same shall be disposed off on an expedited basis within an outer limit of six months.