The court upheld the validity of whip issuance and dismissed the writ petition, confirming that no legal rights were violated during disqualification proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are the councilors of the Town Municipal Council, Gundlupete. They have contested and won the election as candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party (for short, 'the BJP') in the year 2019.

2. The election for post of president and vice-

president of the Town Municipal Council was held on 04.09.2024. On the ground that, inspite of issuing the necessary whip, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 voted against the party candidate and petitioner Nos.3 to 5 abstained from voting, the petitioners have been disqualified under the provisions of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 . The impugned order of disqualification has been passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The case of the petitioners is that there was no issuance of a valid whip and even if it is there, the same has not been served on the petitioners and for that reason, the petitioners could not have been disqualified.

4. Per contra, the respondents submits that the party State president of the BJP delegated the authority to issue the whip to the District President of BJP, Chamarajanagar. In pursuance of such delegation he has issued the necessary whip directing all the councilors elected from the BJP to vote for the official candidate of the BJP for the post of Vice-president (respondent No.4).

5. The question that arises for consideration is:

i. Whether there was due delegation for issuance of a whip from the State President of the BJP to the District President of the BJP, Chamaraja Nagar?

ii. Whether the District President of the BJP, Chamaraja Nagar, has served the whip on the petitioners herein to vote for respondent No.4 in the election for the post of Vice-president conducted on

04.09.2024?

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the original records for verification. It is seen that by letter dated 04.09.2024, the State BJP President has delegated the power to choose the candidate and issue the necessary whip to the District BJP President, Chamaraja Nagar. In pursuance of the same, the District BJP President, Chamaraja Nagar has issued a whip to all the BJP councilors. The same has been sought to be served on the petitioners herein through WhatsApp messages, courier service, as well as by affixing the copy of the whip on the door of their respective houses.

Photographs regarding the same are produced.

7. Regarding WhatsApp messages, it is submitted by the respondents that the same has been sent to the mobile number of the petitioners and screenshots of the same have been produced for the perusal of this Court. Regarding the service made on the petitioners through courier, it is submitted that one family member of petitioner No.5 received the same and the other petitioners have not received the same. It has been returned on the ground that the door is locked. It is the categorical submission of the respondent that the petitioners, though orally told about the issuance of the whip, refused to receive the same and hence, the same had to be sent through WhatsApp, courier and by affixture.

8. Respondent No.1 appreciating the evidence produced before him, has come to the conclusion that the whip has been served on the petitioners in the manner known to law. I do not see any error in the same. More so, this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, is not sitting in appeal over the decision of respondent No.1. What is examined is whether any legal right of the petitioners has been violated by respondent No.1.

9. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, one has to conclude that whip has been issued on the petitioners properly and the petitioners, even though having the knowledge of the decision of the party, have deliberat