Point of law: Quash of notices - registration of the rules and the Authorized Officer by the leader of the Municipal Party was only requirement under the rules but it was neither mandatory nor compulsory, it was only directory.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. These eight appeals have been preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in four Special Civil Applications bearing Nos.11319, 11176, 11256 and 11266 of 2020 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed all the four petitions and quashed the order of the Designated Authority dated 02.09.2020 whereby the original writ petitioners had been disqualified as members of the Dakor Nagarpalika.

2. Facts in short are that in the 2018 election of the members/councillors of the Nagarpalika, Dakor comprising of 28 seats, 17 elected candidates had contested as independent candidates whereas 11 elected members/councillors had contested as official candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The agenda for election for the posts of President and Vice President was declared on 18.02.2018 and 03.03.2018 was fixed as the date for election in which these 28 elected members/councillors were to cast their votes. The Bharatiya Janata Party nominated Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Patel as its candidate for the post of President and Jyotsnaben Ajaykumar Patel as its candidate for the post of Vice President. It is also admitted that the State President of Bharatiya Janata Party, Gujarat Unit, in its communication dated 02.03.2018 clearly mentioned the names of the nominated candidates for the posts of President and Vice President on behalf of the Party and accordingly issued a whip/mandate that all members/councillors should vote for them. The said authorization letter was addressed to the General Secretary of the Kheda District Unit of Bharatiya Janata Party, who in turn communicated the same to all the 11 members of the Nagarpalika who had been elected as official candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

3. However, in the election which was held on 03.03.2018 for the posts of President and Vice President, 7 members/councillors elected as official candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party did not follow the mandate rather violated it and instead voted for an independent candidate who had been set up by none other than one of the 7 defecting elected councillors. On account of the said conduct which amounted to violating the whip/mandate and as a consequence defection from the party, 4 remaining BJP sponsored elected candidates moved the petition before the Designated Authority to declare these 7 members as disqualified. The Designated Authority took cognizance, issued notices and after considering the rival submissions, vide order dated 02.09.2020 declared these 7 elected councillors as disqualified. Aggrieved by the same, the 7 disqualified councillors filed 4 separate petitions referred to above, which were clubbed together. Vide judgment dated 06.11.2020 the learned Single Judge allowed all the 4 petitions and quashed the order of the Designated Authority dated 02.09.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present 8 appeals had been preferred.

3.1 Four appeals bearing Letters Patent Appeal Nos.917, 918, 919 and 933 of 2020 have been preferred by one of the complainants before the Designated Authority challenging the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the four writ petitions and quashing the order of the Designated Authority. The other four appeals bearing Letters Patent Appeal Nos.958, 959, 960 and 961 of 2020 have also been preferred by one of the four complainants challenging the very same order of the learned Single Judge passed in four separate petitions. It may be noticed that in the second set of appeals filed by the very same person, different lawyers are representing the appellants in different appeals.

4. We have heard Shri Chitrajeet Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.917, 918, 919 and 933 of 2020, Shri P.S.Champaneri, learned counsel for Shri R.N.Kapadia, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.961 of 2020, Shri R.N.Kapadia, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.960 of 2020