1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners questioning the order passed by the respondent No. 1-Deputy Commissioner, U.K. District, Karwar in No. DUDC-2/ VIVA/19/2016-17 dated 24.04.2017 vide Annexure-M disqualifying the petitioners from the post of Councilors of Sirsi City Municipal Council (for short ‘CMC’) upon the complaint filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein. The impugned order of the respondent No. 1 has been challenged under these writ petitions by urging various grounds.

2. Brief facts of the petitions are as under:

The petitioners herein had contested the election to the CMC, Sirsi and the results were announced on 11.03.2013 declaring the petitioners herein as the elected members of the respective wards. Subsequent to completion of the first term of the office of the President and Vice President of the CMC, Sirsi, a notification came to be issued with regard to the election to the aforesaid President and Vice President for the remaining period. The election was scheduled to be held on 06.04.2015 and thereafter the election for the post of the President and Vice President of the CMC, Sirsi was held and the first petitioner was elected as the President of the CMC, Sirsi. It is further stated that the respondents 2 and 3 herein filed complaint on 30.04.2016 u/s 4(1)(b) r/w Rule 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (for short ‘Act’) to the Commissioner of CMC, Sirsi, with a request to refer the same to the respondent No. 1 being the Deputy Commissioner on the allegations made that the election for the office of the President and Vice President was scheduled on 06.04.2015 and a meeting was convened in the CMC, Sirsi Block Congress Office on 31.03.2016 and 05.04.2016 to select a candidate for the office of President and Vice President from the INC. As the respondent No. 3 was nominated by the party to run for the office of the President, the respondent No. 2 served whip on all the councilors of the INC on 05.04.2016 with a direction to vote in favour of the party candidate for the office of the President. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their complaint complained that the petitioner No. 1 in violation of the whip contested for the office of the President and other petitioners have voted in favour of petitioner No. 1 by violating the whip. With the above allegations the complainants sought for disqualification of the petitioners herein and one more Councilor, namely, Amanullah Khan.

It is further stated that the petitioners have filed objections denying the allegations made in the complaint. They have denied that two meetings were held on 31.03.2016 and 05.04.2016 and they were served with the whips. Respondents 2 and 3 have specifically contended that they have created and concocted some documents and duplicate whip forms with forged signatures with ulterior political motive. Whereas the petitioners also contended that the respondent No. 2 is the President of DCC and he has no power to issue a valid whip. In substance, the petitioners challenge the legality of the alleged whip and also its service on them. The objection which is filed by them is produced as Annexure-P. Copy of the statement of objection filed by the petitioner No. 6 along with another councilor namely Amanullah Khan is produced as Annexure-B1. Whereas the respondents 2 and 3 in order to substantiate their case have produced registers of meetings said to have been held on 31.03.2016 and 05.04.2016 and got marked them as Ex.P.24 and also whip forms alleged to have been acknowledged by the petitioners and Sri. Amanullah Khan who was the respondent No. 7 in the complaint before the respondent No. 1. In so far as the power of the respondent No. 2 to issue whip is concerned, respondents 2 and 3 produced copy of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee of KPCC dated 10.01.2004 marked as Ex.P.11, by which, the power to issue whip was delegated to the President of KPCC. The letter issued by President o