IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 26037 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)

BETWEEN:

SMT. B.N BHAGYAMMA W/O MARAPPA K, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.57, NAGEGOWDANAPALYA, THALAGHATTAPURA, BENGALURU-560062.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Digitally signed by BENGALURU URBAN, SUMA KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, Location:

BENGALURU-560009.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, H. GOLLAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYTH, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560060.

5. SRI. NAGESH P.

S/O PATLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.119, DODDABELE COLONY, HARALIKATTE, BENGALURU-560060 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.5)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO "NO CONFIDENCE MOTION" DATED 11.08.2025 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEETING DATED 11.08.2025 WHICH IS CONDUCTED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO RE-SCHEDULE THE MEETING FOR "NO CONFIDENCE MOTION" AGAINST THE ADHAYKSHA OF H. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged a meeting conducted by respondent No.3 on 11.08.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence. He has also sought a direction to respondent No.2 to reschedule the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the Adhyaksha of H.Gollahalli village Panchayat, Bengaluru South Taluk.

2. The petitioner is a member of H.Gollahalli village Panchayat. He contends that the said Panchayat comprises 14 members, of whom 09 members moved a motion of no confidence against the Adhyaksha (respondent No.5 herein) on 13.06.2025. Respondent No.3 issued a notice on 25.07.2025 to all the members proposing to convene a meeting on 11.08.2025. The petitioner alleges that instead of conducting the voting by secret ballot to ensure confidentiality, respondent No.3 instructed the members present to cast their votes by raising their hands. The petitioner contends that 09 members voted in favour of the motion, while 05 members voted against it. He contends that for a motion of no confidence to succeed, two-thirds of the members present were required to vote in favour of it, and therefore, 10 members ought to have supported the motion. Since only 09 members voted in favour of it, respondent No.3 held that motion of no confidence was not successful. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 16.08.2025 before respondent No.3 seeking the video footage of the meeting. However, respondent No.3 did not furnish the same. He has therefore challenged the meeting held on 11.08.2025 and prayed that the meeting be re-scheduled to consider motion of no confidence.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyakasha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994' for short) do not mandate that the voting on a no confidence motion must be conducted by raising hands. He contends that in order to maintain the confidentiality of the members while casting their votes, respondent No.3 ought to have conducted the process by secret ballot. In support of this contention, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Singh and others Vs. Rekha Singh and others [(2020) 6 SCC 812]. He further cont