Failure to utilize minimum services for two of five preceding years attracts electoral disqualification under KOS Act.

The appellants are primary milk producer co-operative societies and members of the Tumkuru District Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Union Ltd (the "District Milk Union").

Following the expiration of the Managing Committee's term, the Union initiated the process of preparing voters' lists for the 2024-2029 term.

The appellants were declared ineligible to vote or contest under the Union's bye-laws (specifically Bye-law 15.2) and Section 20(2)(a-v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (KOS) Act, 1959, for failing to supply the minimum requisite quantity of milk (150kg for 270 days) during the preceding years.

The appellants contended that their failure was due to extenuating circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Lumpy Skin Disease, and drought.

A Learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, holding that the Election Officer need only verify the factum of supply rather than excuses for non-supply.

The appellants challenged this interpretation in the present writ appeals.

Whether a member society is ineligible to vote under Section 20(2)(a-v) of the KOS Act if it fails to utilize minimum services for any two years out of the last five, or whether such failure must be for consecutive years.

The court primarily interpreted Section 20(2)(a-v) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2021.

Prior to the 2021 amendment, the rule required failure to utilize services for "three consecutive co-operative years" to trigger disqualification.

Post-amendment (w.e.f. 15.10.2021), the statutory criterion was modified to "any two co-operative years out of the last five co-operative years".

The court also noted Rule 13-D(2-A) of the KOS Rules, 1960 regarding the procedure for preparing ineligible voters' lists.

The Court focused strictly on the literal and grammatical interpretation of the amended Section 20(2)(a-v).

It rejected the appellants' argument that the non-supply of milk must occur in consecutive years to attract ineligibility.

The Court observed that the language of the 2021 amendment is unambiguous: it substituted the "consecutive" requirement with a broader "any two out of five" years threshold.

Consequently, if a society failed to meet supply standards in any two or more years within the five-year window, the disqualification applies regardless of whether those years were back-to-back.

The Court also dismissed the argument that supplying milk for three out of five years (the majority of the term) cures the defect, as the statute specifically penalizes the failure in "any two" years.

Since the appellants admitted to the shortfall in at least two of the previous five years, they squarely fell within the statutory bar.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's decision that the appellants were ineligible to vote or contest.

The court directed the Returning Officer to exclude the votes cast by the appellants (pursuant to earlier interim orders) and issue a fresh declaration of the election results.