1. The petitioner, an elected member of Talala Taluka Panchayat has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal No.59 of 2011 in exercise of power under the provision of Gujarat Provision For Disqualification of Members Of Local Authorities For Defection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Local Authorities Defection Act', for the sake of brevity).

2. Facts in short, as narrated by the petitioner in the memo of petition, deserve to be set out as under;

3. The petitioner happens to be an elected member of Talala Taluka Panchayat under the symbol of Bhartiya Janta Party. The total number of elected members of Talala Taluka Panchayat is 17. Out of which, 9 members belonged to Bhartiya Rashtriya Janta Party and 8 members belonged to Bhartiya Janta Party. The respondent no.2 also is a Taluka Panchayat member elected on the symbol of Bhartiya Janta Party.

3.1 The District President of Junagadh District Unit of Bhartiya Janta Party on 20.12.2010 party issued direction that the respondent no.2 was to be elected and therefore members were to vote in his favour in election for the post of Chairman of 'Talala Samajic Nyay Samiti'. The meeting of the even date for electing Chairman of 'Talala Samajic Nyay Samiti' was held for electing Chairman from amongst members of the Samajic Nyay Samiti. The Samajic Nyay Samiti is consisting of 5 members included the present petitioner as well as respondent no.2 in whose favour the direction was issued on the very samedate i.e. 20.12.2010. In that meeting one Shri Ramsinh Valabhai Parmar, i.e. nominated member, proposed name of present petitioner for the post of Chairman which was supported and seconded by another member of the Committee Shri Bhanubhai Bhikhabhai Chudasma, another nominated member and there was no other candidate in the fray and as the petitioner consented to be a candidate and as there was no other candidate he was declared elected, which was protested by the respondent no.2.

3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this, respondent no.2 moved the concerned authority under the provision of the Local Authorities Defection Act which was treated as an Appeal No. 59 of 2011, and the authority passed order on 19.10.2011, allowing the same and declaring that the present petitioner has incurred disqualification to be continued as member of Talala Taluka Panchayat. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present petition is filed on the ground mentioned there under.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the order impugned is unsustainable in law, as the provision of the Local Authorities Defection Act is not appreciated by the concerned authority and the defection is declared, though there was no meeting of Taluka Panchayat as such and therefore, this provision was not attracted.

5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the said meeting in which alleged defection is said to have occurred was a meeting of Samajic Nyay Samiti, which is different than the Taluka Panchayat itself. The said meeting did not involve any voting as such and when there was no voting, there was no question of voting against the party's whip or abstaining against the party's whip and hence provisions of the Local Authorities Defection Act were not attracted.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside, as the provisions of Local Authorities Defection Act was not attracted to this proceeding at all.

7. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 contended that the plain reading of Section 3 and Section 6 of the Local Authorities Defection Act would clearly show that the real intention of legislature was to see to it that the whip issued by the party President or the authorised person in a district is carried out by all its members, who have been elected on the sym