JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

What constitutes a ‘mandate’ for the purpose of provisions of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act 1986, ('the Act', for the sake of brevity), and what is the scope of working of Rule 10 of Gujarat Provisions for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules, 1987, ('the Rules', for short), are the twin questions coming up for consideration in these two cognate Letters Patent Appeals, which are being decided by this common judgment as the facts involved are similar and the issues identical.

1.1 Letters Patent Appeal No.811 of 2011 arises from the judgment and order dated 22.04.2011 in Special Civil Application No.4188 of 2011; while Letters Patent Appeal No.812 of 2011 is from the judgment and order of even date in Special Civil Application No.4234 of 2011 of learned Single Judge. In the original writ petitions, the challenge was directed against the orders dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Designated Authority disqualifying the petitioners, who were the elected members of Zalod Taluka Panchayat and Fatepura Taluka Panchayat of Dahod District respectively, under Section 3(1)(b) read with Section 6 of the Act. In both the petitions learned single judge set aside the orders of the designated authority and consequentially the disqualification of the petitioners stood annulled.

2. The profile of relevant facts involved in the first petition being Special Civil Application No.4186 of 2001 relatable to Letters Patent Appeal No.811 of 2011, adopted for elaborate discussion in the present judgment was that the petitioners were the elected members of Zalod Taluka Panchayat. The body of Panchayat had total strength of 35 members, out of which 22 members were elected on the symbol of political party called the Bhartiya Janta Party, whereas 12 members were elected from the Indian National Congress on its symbol, and one was an independent member.

2.1 It was the case of the petitioners that it was resolved in the meeting dated 29.10.2010 of Zalod Taluka Sankalan Samiti to elect petitioner No.2 Rameshbhai Bachubhai Damor as the President of the Panchayat and to make him the candidate for that post. The State Level President of the Bhartiya Janta Party in his letter dated 07.11.2010 authorised the District President to issue mandate to vote in favour of the candidates selected by the party. In that letter, one Bhaveshbhai Babubhai Katara was named as party candidate for the post of President, whereas petitioner No.2 Rameshbhai Bachubhai Damor was mentioned as candidate for Vice President's post. It was the further case that the petitioners visited Dahod District Party Office on 08.11.2010 to have instructions about the party mandate but no information was supplied to them. The District President had issued a letter dated 09.11.2010 to one Rameshbhai Hathila for service of party mandate to elect the members of the party but it was never served on the members.

2.2 In the meeting held on 09.11.2010 to elect the President and the Vice President, petitioner No.2 Rameshbhai Bachubhai Damor got elected as President by securing 26 votes and the appellant-original respondent Nos.3 in the petition, Bhaveshkumar B. Katara could muster eight votes as evidently the petitioners did not vote for Bhaveshbhai Katara. Said Bhaveshkumar Katara filed appeal No.51 of 2010 before the Designated Authority seeking disqualification of the petitioners on the ground that they had defied the party mandate, and succeeded in getting the petitioners disqualified. In the writ petitions, the learned single judge concluded otherwise, holding that there was nothing on record to show that a mandate was served upon the petitioners or was read over at the time of meeting.

3. This Court heard learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati with learned advocate Mr. M. A. Kharadi for appellant and Mr. B.M. Mangukia, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 14 appearing in Letters Patent Appe