TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) BY an Order made by him under Section 4 of Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, the State Election Commissioner has disqualifiedthe petitioners from the membership of the Zilla Panchayat on the ground of defection contrary to Section 3 of the said Act. Aggrieved the petitioners have questioned the validity of that order in the present writ petitions.

( 2 ) ). In the Elections to the post of "adhyaksha" (President) and "upadhyaksha" (Vice President) of the Zilla Panchayat, Gadag held on 25th of April, 1998, in which, the petitioners were elected as "adhyaksha" (President) and "upadhyaksha" (Vice President ). A complaint filed by Respondent Shri Channu Patil, more than two months after the election alleged that the petitioners were guilty of defection within the meaning of Section 3 of Act aforesaid and had thereby incurred a disqualification to continue as Members of the Panchayat. According to the complaint the petitioners had contested the election to the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha contrary to the directions issued by their party to support the candidature of those nominated by the party for the posts. The petitioners it was alleged had violated the directive from the party and thereby incurred a disqualification to continue as members of the Panchayat.

( 3 ) IN the objections filed by the petitioners before the Election Commissioner, the allegation that a direction had been issued by the party to its Zilla Panchayat members to vote for any candidate set up by it, was denied. The locus standi of the complainant to maintain a complaint was also questioned among other defences that were set up by the petitioners. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Election Commissioner, identified as many as five issues. Answering issue No. 1 in the affirmative, the Election Commissioner held that the complaint filed before him was maintainable. An authorisation to issue a Whip was in the opinion of the Election Commissioner, an authorisation valid even for purposes of instituting a complaint against those who may have defined any such whip. Issue No. 2 related to the holding of a party meeting and passing of a resolution selecting candidates for the office of Adhyaksha and Upa-Adhyaksha. While the Election Commissioner did not record any specific finding as regards the passing of a resolution nominating the candidates, it was of the view that the passing of such a resolution was proper.

( 4 ) ISSUE No. 3, which was by far the most important issue in the case related to the issue of a Whip to the members of the Zilla Panchayat and the violation thereof by the petitioners. The Election Commissioner held that the issue of a direction to the members was not established by any credit evidence. Issue no. 4, dealt with the competence of the General Secretary of the erstwhile Dharwad District to issue Whips to the Members of the Zilla Panchayats, which was answered in the affirmative by the Election Commissioner.

( 5 ) ISSUE No. 5, dealt with the right of the petitioners to contest the Election against the party candidates and whether their knowledge about the nomination of the Official Candidates by the party was enough to disqualify them from continuing as Members of the Panchayat. Answering the issue in the affirmative, the Election Commissioner held that even when the issue of a whip to the Members of the Zilla Panchayat was not established, the petitioners having known about the nomination of official candidates for the post of President and Vice President of the Panchayat by the party were bound to vote for the said candidates and suffer disqualification if they did not do so. He accordingly proceeded to disqualify the petitioners from the Membership of the Panchayat on the ground of defection contrary to Section 3 of the Act.

( 6 ) APPEARING for the petitioners Mr. Patil made a two-fold submission. He urged that the Election Commissioner was not justified in holding th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document