Writ prohibition cannot interrupt cooperative elections; disqualification must be challenged through election remedies.

The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were elected directors of the respondent Co-operative Bank in an election held on 27 September 2026.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 4 was a loan defaulter when he filed his nomination and on the date of that election; respondent No. 4 reportedly paid the outstanding dues on 29 September 2026.

The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent No. 4 from contesting the Bank’s President and Vice-President elections scheduled for 9 October 2026.

The petition was considered at the preliminary hearing.

Whether the writ petition could be entertained to prevent respondent No. 4 from contesting the elections for President and Vice-President on the ground of alleged disqualification as a defaulter.

Whether the record disclosed a basis to restrain respondent No. 4 under Section 29-C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

Article 226 jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition is limited to preventing a subordinate court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting beyond the jurisdiction vested in it.

Under the Court’s reasoning, an objection that a candidate is disqualified from contesting an election must be raised before the Election Officer at the scrutiny of nominations or pursued thereafter through appropriate proceedings, including an election petition, in accordance with law.

The Court also considered Section 29-C of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, noting that the record did not show proceedings under that provision had been initiated against respondent No. 4.

The petitioner’s allegations of default and the asserted disqualification raised an election-related objection, but the requested prohibition did not concern a subordinate court or tribunal acting beyond its jurisdiction.

The Court therefore held that Article 226 was not the appropriate means to restrain respondent No. 4 from contesting the election; the objection had to be pursued through the election process or appropriate subsequent proceedings.

Further, no proceedings under Section 29-C against respondent No. 4 were shown on the record.

The petition was rejected at the preliminary stage, and the Court found it unnecessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4.