( 1 ) IN the present appeal, the appellants original petitioners have challenged a judgement and order dated 20. 3. 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2069/2009.

( 2 ) THE appellants are members of Morbi Nagarpalika elected on symbol of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP for short ). The post of president of Morbi Nagarpalika felt vacant on account of resignation of the incumbent on 14. 6. 2007. A meeting was therefore, convened to elect a new president on 2. 7. 2007 under the chairmanship of Deputy Collector, Morbi.

2. 1 Respondent No. 2 herein alleging defiance of whip by the appellants filed Petition No. 14/2007 before the Designated Officer seeking their disqualification as members of the Morbi Nagarpalika. In the said application it is stated inter-alia that the appellants are the members of the Nagarpalika elected on the symbol of BJP. A meeting of office bearers of the party was held on 30. 6. 2007 and decision was taken that the party should nominate its candidate for the post of president and all members should vote for such a candidate. The Councilor Narsibhai Vastabhai Dabhi was elected for such nomination and a whip to this effect was also issued. The appellants however, had joined hands with the councilors belonging to the Congress party and despite several attempts they could not be contacted and had deliberately avoided service of whip. They had not even cared to find out whether any whip has been issued by the party or not. They had defied the directives of the party and one of them i. e. Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadiya, appellant No. 1 herein had contested for the post of president contrary to whip of the party. Such conduct of the appellants was not pardoned by the party. It is therefore, prayed that these members should be disqualified in terms of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification for Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules 1987. (here-in-after referred to as the Defection Rules ). It may be noted that said application was supported by affidavit dated 17. 10. 2007 in which it is stated that the contents of paragraphs No. 1 to 8 are based on personal knowledge. 2. 2 The appellants herein, thereafter moved an application dated 29. 1. 2009 stating inter-alia that they are seriously disputing the issuance of any mandate by the party and in fact no mandate was issued. They therefore, sought permission to lead evidence in following terms : "2. Respondent further states that looking to the seriousness of the matter and issues involving question of fact more particularly with regard to issuance of mandate, respondents request this Hon'ble Authority to order the petitioner as well as the respondents to lead the evidence to that effect and if the petitioner is not interested in leading the evidence, Respondents request this Hon'ble Court to permit the present respondents to cross-examine the petitioner so that truth can be brought on record. Hence, in the interest of justice, the present respondents pray this Hon'ble Court to pass appropriate order for leading evidence, in the interest of justice. " 2. 3 The said application however, came to be turned down by the authority by an order dated 20. 2. 2009 observing inter-alia that as per Rule 7 (7) of the Defection Rules, officer has to follow the principles of natural justice while deciding the question of disqualification and in the said rule there is no provision for cross examination.

( 3 ) IT is this order which came to be challenged by the appellants before the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2069/2009.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, before adverting to the decision of Learned Single Judge, it may be noted that on ehalf of the appellants, yet another application came to be made on 17. 3. 2009, in which it is stated inter-alia that their application for cross examination has been rejected by the Designated Officer. The said decision has been challenged before the Learned Single Judge which