- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH 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, BENGALURU URBAN, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 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, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025 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 3RD RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE 3RD 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025 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 contends that two-thirds of the members present and voting would come to 9.3 and therefore, respondent No.3 ought to have considered the support of 09 members as sufficient to hold that the motion of no confidence was held successfully. He also refers to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hardatt Singh Vs. the Block Development and Panchayat [AIR 1976 P and H 122], to contend that though the rules did not prescribe the manner of casting votes, the Court held that when two or more candidates' contested for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025 post of President, it is preferable that the mode of voting be by secret ballot. He therefore contends that the impugned meeting and the result of the meeting be annulled, and that respondent No.3 be directed to convene a fresh meeting. 4. The fact that, out of 14 members present at the meeting, only 09 members cast their votes in favour of the motion while the others voted against it is not in dispute. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, a motion of no confidence, in order to succeed, must be supported by two-thirds of the total number of members. Two-thirds of 14 comes to 9.3 and is required to be rounded off to the nearest digit namely 10. As rightly held by respondent No.3, 10 members ought to have supported the motion for it to be successful. There is no error on the part of respondent No.3 in arriving at such a conclusion. Even otherwise, the meeting conducted on 11.08.2005 was itself faulty as the same was not held within 30 days from the date of submitting a request in Form-1, as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. 5. As regards the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 ought to have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025 adopted the method of secret ballot, it is necessary to refer to Rule 3(7) of The Rules, 1994, which reads as follows: "As soon as the meeting convened and sub- rule 2, commences, the Assistant commissioner shall read to the member of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate". 6. The rules are silent regarding the manner in which the members have to cast their votes. Therefore, it was not necessary for respondent No.3 to mandate that all members must cast their votes by secret ballot. Casting of votes by raising hands is also an accepted mode of voting particularly in Panchayats. Hence, respondent No.3 was justified in permitting the members to cast their votes by raising their hands. 7. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Laxmi Singh referred supra is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, under the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats and Zilla Panchayaths Adhiniyam, 1961, the Returning Officer was required to ensure voting by secret ballot. However, in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48982 WP No. 26037 of 2025 instant case, the applicable rules are silent as to the manner in which the votes are to be cast. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. As regards the judgment in the case of Hardatt Singh referred supra, the same pertains to an election to the post of President of a Panchayat. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that when two or more candidates contest for the post of president, it is appropriate to adopt the mode of secret ballot. That judgment too is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survie for consideration and the same stand rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14