A delegate cannot vote in a secondary society’s election after the primary society’s board is superseded.

The petitioner was elected as a delegate of respondent No.7–Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society to represent it in the election of the Board of Directors of respondent No.6–Taluk Agricultural Produce Marketing Co-operative Society, a secondary co-operative society, scheduled for 26 July 2026.

The final voters’ list had been published on 2 July 2026 and the election calendar on 3 July 2026.

On 23 July 2026, the Board of respondent No.7 was superseded and a Special Officer was appointed under Section 31 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

The petitioner challenged that order and sought permission to vote on the basis that his name appeared in the final electoral roll.

By an interim order dated 24 July 2026, the High Court permitted him to cast his vote, directed that it be kept in a separate sealed box, and restrained declaration of the election result without the Court’s leave.

The petitioner subsequently cast his vote.

During final hearing, he did not press the challenge to the appointment of the Special Officer and confined his claim to having his vote counted.

The Court applied Section 2(e-1-a) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, defining a “delegate” as a member appointed by the Board to represent the society in another co-operative society, including the power to participate and vote.

However, the definition was subject to the context and other provisions of the Act.

Section 20(2)(b)(i) expressly denies a co-operative society the right to vote where its Board has been superseded or a Special Officer has been appointed under Section 31.

Section 31(3) provides that, upon appointment of a Special Officer, the members of the Board vacate and are deemed to have vacated office.

Section 21(2)(a) permits the Board of a member society to appoint one of its Board members to vote on its behalf, while Section 18-B(iii) provides for cessation of directorship in a secondary society when the Board of the representative’s Primary Society is removed or a Special Officer is appointed.

Rule 13-D governs preparation and finalisation of electoral rolls, including the list of delegates entitled to vote.

The Court considered Gunjahalli Nagappa v. State of Karnataka, 1975 SCC OnLine Kar 19, affirmed in State of Karnataka v. Gunjahalli Nagappa, 1975 SCC OnLine SC 211, on the principle that an electoral roll ordinarily remains unchanged throughout an election process.

The Court considered Sri H.S. Mohan Reddy v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2022 KAR 3543, on the principle that statutory disqualifications may operate even after election or appointment.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had initially been validly appointed as a delegate by the Board of respondent No.7 and that his name was included in the final electoral roll.

Nevertheless, the right to vote in the secondary society’s election was not determined solely by the general definition of “delegate” or by inclusion in the electoral roll.

Section 20(2)(b)(i) specifically operated where the Board of the Primary Society had been superseded or a Special Officer appointed under Section 31.

Since respondent No.7’s Board had been superseded before the poll, the statutory condition disabling the Primary Society from voting had arisen.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner remained a delegate in a general sense but could not exercise the voting power attached to representation of respondent No.7 in the election to respondent No.6.

The principle in Gunjahalli Nagappa concerning the stability of electoral rolls did not override the express statutory disqualification contained in Section 20(2)(b)(i), particularly where the Act itself contemplated the relevant change in status during the election process.

Although he was a valid delegate of respondent No.7, the supersession of respondent No.7’s Board and appointment of a Special Officer under Section 31 attracted Section 20(2)(b)(i), disentitling him from voting in the election to respondent No.6.

The petitioner’s challenge to the appointment of the Special Officer was not pressed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Consequently, the interim arrangement permitting the petitioner to cast a vote in a separate sealed box did not result in any direction to count that vote.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.