1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, who are facing the proceedings under the provisions of the Gujarat Provision For Disqualification Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which is pending before the competent authority being Appeal No. 44/2009, have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 05/08/2010 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners raising preliminary objection in Appeal No. 44/2009. 2. The petitioners are the elected members of the Vapi Municipality who have been elected as the official candidates of Bhartiya Janta Party. Respondent no. 2 had initiated the proceedings, being Appeal No. 44/2009, before respondent no. 1 designated officer interalia praying for disqualifying the petitioners for the alleged breach of mandate issued to the petitioners for casting their votes in favour of one Shri Paresh Desai for election of President of the Vapi Municipality. In the said application/proceedings, the petitioners submitted an application raising preliminary objections to dismiss Appeal No. 44/2009 contenting interalia that as the whip by the appropriate authority was not intimated within a period of 15 days it is to be presumed that there is no whip at all, and, therefore, for breach of such a whip, no proceedings could be initiated against the petitioners. That the petitioners relied upon Sub Rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Gujarat Provisions For Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in one application/complaint all the petitioners are joined as respondents and such a joint petition/appeal was not maintainable, as against each member there is a separate cause of action, and, therefore, separate petitions/applications are required to be filed against each member. The designated officer by impugned order overruled the objections raised by the petitioners. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order overruling the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Shri Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has as such reiterated what was submitted before respondent no. 1 designated officer while raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that there is non-compliance of Sub Rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules, inasmuch as the appropriate authority had not intimated the designated authority with respect to the whip within a period of 15 days and, therefore, for the alleged breach of such a whip, no petition is maintainable as there was no valid whip at all. It is further submitted by Shri Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the designated authority has not properly appreciated the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners and has passed the impugned order. It is submitted that it was not the case on behalf of the petitioners that the application/complaint was required to be filed within a period of 15 days. It is also further submitted by Shri Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that considering the provisions of the Act and the Rules such a joint petition/complaint was not maintainable at all. It is further submitted that against each member there is a separate cause of action, and, therefore, considering Section 3 of the Act, which speaks about the singular Councillor or a Member, such a joint petition/complaint is not maintainable. Shri Mangukiya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Privy Council in the case of PENINSULAR AND ORENTAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY Vs. TSUNE KIJIMA AND OTHERS reported in (1895) 1 A.C. 661 as well as the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of FRANKENBURG Vs. GREAT HORSELESS CARRIA