Sadashiv
H. Patil Vs. Vithal D. Teke & Ors [2000] INSC 460 (31 August 2000)
CJI ,
R.C. LAhoti & K.G. Balakrishnan
R.C.
Lahoti, J.
L.I.T.J
Leave granted in S.L.P.C) No.21085 of 1998.
In all
these appeals the controversy arising for decision is whether certain members
of the municipal council have incurred disqualification on ground of defection.
The
Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (Act No.20 of
1987) (hereinafter the Act, for short) was enacted to provide for
disqualification of members of certain local authorities on the ground of
defection and for matters incidental and connected therewith. In exercise of
the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Act, the Government of Maharashtra has
framed the Rules known as the Maharashtra Local Authority Members
Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter the Rules, for short).
We
will refer to a few relevant provisions from the Act and the Rules insofar as
are necessary for the purpose of the appeals before us.
Section 2 is the interpretation clause. The relevant
definitions are as under:- 2. In this Act unless the context otherwise
requires,- (a) aghadi or front means a group of persons who have formed
themselves into party for the purpose of setting up candidates for election to
a local authority;
xxx
xxx xxx xxx (e) local authority means - (i) a Municipal Corporation, (ii) a
Municipal Council;
(iii) a
Zilla Parishad; or (iv) a Panchayat Samiti;
xxx
xxx xxx xxx (i) municipal Party, in relation to the councillor belonging to any
political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the Explanation to
section 3, means - (i) in the case of a councillor of a Municipal Corporation,
the group consisting of all councillors of the Municipal Corporation for the
time being belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in accordance
with the said Explanation;
(ii)
in the case of a councillor of a Municipal Council, the group consisting of all
the councillors of the Municipal Council for the time being belonging to that
political party or aghadi or front in accordance with the said Explanation;
(j) original
political party, in relation to a councillor or a member, means the political
party to which he belongs for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 3.
3.
Disqualification on ground of defection.
(1)
Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, a councillor or a member
belonging to any political party or aghadi or front shall be disqualified for
being a councillor or a member- (a) if he has voluntarily given up his
membership of such political party or aghadi or front; or (b) if he votes or
abstains from voting in any meeting of a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council,
Zilla Parishad or, as the case may be, Panchayat Samiti contrary to any
direction issued by the political party or aghadi or front to which he belongs
or by any person or authority authorised by any of them in this behalf, without
obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party or
aghadi or front, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been
condoned by such political party or aghadi or front, person or authority within
fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention :
Provided
that, such voting or abstention without prior permission from such party or
aghadi or front, at election of any office, authority or committee under any
relevant municipal law or the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis
Act, 1961 shall not be condoned under this clause;
Explanation.
- For the purpose of this section- (a) a person elected as a councillor, or as
the case may be, a member shall be deemed to belong to the political party or
aghadi or front, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as
such councillor or member;
(b) a
nominated or co-opted councillor or member shall- (i) Where he is a member of
any political party or@@ JJJJJJJJJ aghadi or front on the date of his
nomination, or as case@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ may be, co-option
as such councillor, or as the case may be, member be deemed to belong to such
political party or aghadi or front, (ii) in any other case, be deemed to belong
to the Political party or aghadi or front of which he becomes, or as the case
may be, first becomes a member of such party or aghadi or front before the
expiry of six months from the date on which he is nominated or co-opted as such
councillor, or as the case may be,member;
(c) a
nominated member, in relation to a Panchayat Samiti, includes an associate
member, referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 57 of the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
(2) An
elected councillor, or as the case may be, member who has been elected as such
otherwise than as a candidate set up by political party or aghadi or front
shall be disqualified for being a councillor, or as the case may be, a member
if he joins any political party or aghadi or front after such election.
(3) A
nominated or co-opted councillor, or as the case may be, member shall be
disqualified for being a councillor, or as the case may be, if he joins any
political party or aghadi or front after the expiry of six months from the date
on which he is nominated or co-opted as such councillor, or as the case may be,
member.
(4)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section
a person who on the commencement of this Act, is a councillor, or as the case
may be, a member (whether elected or nominated or co- opted as such councillor
or member) shall - (a) where he was a member of a political party or aghadi or
front immediately before such commencement, be deemed, for the purposes of
sub-section (1), to have been elected as a councillor, or as the case may be, a
member as a candidate set up by such political party or aghadi or front;
(b) in
any other case, be deemed to be an elected councillor, or as the case may be,
member who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any
political party or aghadi or front for the purpose of sub-section (2), or as
the case may be, be deemed to be a nominated or co- opted councillor, or as the
case may be, a member for the purpose of sub-section (3).
[emphasis
supplied] Under Section 7 any question arising as to whether a Councillor or
member has become subject to disqualification under the Act has to be referred
to the Commissioner in the case of Councillor of a Municipal Corporation and to
the Collector in the case of any other Councillor or member.
Finality
has been attached to the decision of the Commissioner or Collector. The
jurisdiction of Civil
Court has been
excluded by Section 8 from entertaining any dispute as to disqualification.
Under
Rule 3 the leader of each Municipal Party in relation to a Councillor shall
within 30 days from the date of its formation or within an extended time
furnish the following information to the Collector :- (a) A statement in
writing containing the names of members of such party together with other relevant
particulars regarding such members as prescribed in From I and the names and
designations of the members of such party who have been authorised by it for
communicating with the Collector for the purpose of the rules;
(b) A
copy of the rules and regulations of the Municipal Party;
(c) A
copy of rules and regulations of the party.
Certain
changes in the information furnished are also required to be communicated with
which we are not concerned. Under Rule 4 every
Councillor in relation to Municipal Party is required to furnish
a statement of particulars and declaration in Form III wherein he is required
to disclose his party affiliation also. A summary of information so furnished
shall be published in the Government Gazette. The information is also required
to be entered in a register maintained by the Collector in Form IV. Other
provisions in the rules relate to the procedure by which a reference of any
question as to a Councillor having suffered a disqualification shall be made,
dealt with and disposed of.
In the
appeals before us we are required to deal with an Aghadi or front relating to
Municipal Council. We would therefore analyse the provisions of the Act from
the angle of Municipal Council leaving aside Municipal Corporation, Zilla
Parishad or Panchayat Samiti. In the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the
formation of an Aghadi or front by a group of persons must precede the election
to a local authority. The politico-legal doctrine of disqualification by
defection has been percolated to the elections of local authorities in Maharashtra by enacting the Act. The Act
proposes to encourage the elections being fought by group of persons bringing
themselves together so as to have a common purpose and by contesting election
on a common symbol propagating the principles and purpose which which that
group proposes to administer the local authority if returned to power by the
electorate. Such group of persons having a common ideology though not
necessarily belonging to a political party of State or National level may form
themselves into a party, the immediate purpose whereof is to set up candidates
for election to the local authority. The collective name assigned to such group
of persons is an Aghadi or front. On the elections being accomplished, a
Municipal Council comes into existence which includes elected Councillors
belonging to any political party, Aghadi or front. Once a candidate set up by a
political party, Aghadi or front is declared elected he shall be fictionally
deemed to be belonging to the political party or Aghadi or front by which he
was set up as a candidate at the elections. He has no option in the matter. The
elected Councillors of a particular political party, Aghadi or front constitute
a Municipal Party identified with any political party or Aghadi or front by
which the candidature of such Councillors was sponsored. The Municipal Party
gets a statutory recognition. Rule 3 contemplates a leader of such Municipal
Party being elected or appointed who shall furnish within 30 days from the date
of its formation a statement in writing in Form I being filed with the
Collector wherein the names of members of such party(which means a municipal
party) shall be mentioned. The statement shall also mention the names and
designation of the members of such party authorised to communicate with the
Collector. A copy of the rules and regulations(whether known as such or a
constitution or by any other name) of the Municipal Party and of the parent
party, Aghadi or front are to be filed with the Collector. There is a system of
cross-check provided by the Rules. Not only a statement by the leader of
Municipal Party is to be filed under Rule 3(1)(a), every Councillor in relation
to Municipal Party shall, before he has taken his seat, furnish a statement of
particulars and declaration in Form III. The information so furnished shall be
published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette and subject to rectification of
such discrepancy as may be pointed out and necessary corrigendum if necessary
being published in the Gazette, the information shall be maintained in the
records of the Collector in a register in From IV under Rule 5. In this manner
the evidence of formation of a Municipal Party comes into existence and any
doubts or disputes relating to formation of a particular Municipal Party, and
the members thereof along with the requisite particulars furnished, filed,
notified and entered in the register are ruled out.
The
disqualification with which we are concerned is contemplated by Clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Voting or abstaining from voting in
any meeting of the Municipal Council may entail disqualification, if:- 1) such
voting or abstention is contrary to any direction issued by (a) the political
party or Aghadi or front to which he belongs, or (b) by any person or authority
authorised by the political party or Aghadi or front in this behalf; 2) such
voting or abstention is not accompanied by a prior permission of such political
party or Aghadi or front or person or authority having been obtained previously
or condoned subsequently within 15 days from the date of such voting or
abstention. Condoning is not permissible if such voting or abstention is not
preceded by prior permission and is relatable to election of any office,
authority or committee under the relevant Municipal Law.
Thus,
the power to issue a direction, popularly called a whip, in order to attract
penalty of disqualification has to be issued either by the political party or
by Aghadi or front to which the Councillor belongs. The political party or
Aghadi or front may act collectively or may act through any person or
authority. In the later case the person or authority must be authorised by the
political party or Aghadi or front in this behalf, i.e., for issuing any
direction (whip). If the political party, Aghadi or front has any rules or
regulations whether known as such or a constitution or called by any other name
then the authorisation of the person or authority can be determined by looking
into such document which would be available on the record of the Collector
having been filed as accompanying the statement in Form I, under Rule 3 (1),
else the factum of such authorisation in this behalf having been given to the
person or authority issuing the direction or whip shall have to be proved to
the satisfaction of the Collector dealing with a reference under Section 7 read
with Rules 6, 7 and 8.
Having
so stated the law, briefly and to the extent relevant for our purpose, we now
proceed to deal with the appeals before us. Brief facts and controversy in C.A.
Nos.6266-6668/98.
Janta
Aghadi was constituted in the locality known as Vita for the purpose of
contesting elections for Municipal Council, Vita. In the year 1996 the
elections were announced for the purpose of electing Councillors for a period
of five years. There were 19 wards. Janta Aghadi set up 19 candidates, one from
each ward. The rival political group was Vikas Aghadi which also set up 19
candidates. Janta Aghadi candidates were allotted a common symbol, namely,
motorcar. Out of the 19 candidates of Janta Aghadi, 12 were declared elected.
They were issued with election certificates. All the elected Councillors of
Janta Aghadi submitted the requisite information in Form No.III to the
Collector as required by Rule 4(1). The information was entered into the
relevant register maintained by the Collector and also notified in the
Government Gazette. Meeting of the newly elected Councillors for holding
election for the post of President for a term of one year was scheduled to be
held on 19.12.1996 which was held and President was elected. The controversy
propped up when the time reached for electing a President for the next term.
A
meeting of Janta Aghadi Councillors of Vita Municipal Council was convened to
take place at 4 p.m. on 16.12.1997. The appellant, Sadashiv
Hanmantrao Patil was elected as Paksha Pratod, i.e., Party
Spokesman. It is not disputed that the meeting was attended by Vithal Dhondiram
Teke, Badshah Akbar Tamboli and Smt. Lakmibai Waman Chothe, respondent nos. 1,
2 and 3. It was resolved that Nandkumar Baburao Patil shall be the official
candidate of Janta Aghadi for the post of President and the appellant, Sadashiv
Hanmantrao Patil shall fill in the nomination form as a substitute candidate.
In spite of such resolution Vithal Dhondiram Teke, respondent No.1, filed his
own nomination for the post of President proposed by Badshah Akbar Tamboli,
respondent no.2. Nandkumar B. Patil and Sadashivrao H.
Patil
also filed their nominations as the primary and substitute candidates for the
post of the President as resolved in the meeting of Municipal Party of Janta
Aghadi.
On
15.12.1997, two directions, popularly known in the political parlance as whip,
were issued. One direction was issued to Vithal Dhondiram Teke, respondent no.1
and Badshah Akbar Tamboli, respondent no.2 asking them to withdraw the
nomination and the proposal respectively for candidature of the respondent no.1
for the post of President as having been filed in violation of the resolution
passed at the meeting of Municipal Party of Janta Aghadi. This direction bears
the signatures of one Hanumant Rao who claims to be leader of the political
party known as Janta Aghadi, Vita. It is also signed by Sadashiv Patil, the
appellant in the capacity of Janta Aghadi Chief/Leader of Municipal Party.
Another direction (whip) dated 15.12.1997 was issued to all the Municipal
Councillors of Janta Aghadi directing them to remain present at the meeting of
Vita Municipal Council scheduled to be held on 16.12.1997 and to cast vote in
favour of the authorised candidate nominated by Janta Aghadi, namely, Nandkumar
Baburao Patil. This whip is signed by the appellant, Sadashiv Hanumantrao Patil
in the capacity of party leader, Janta Aghadi, Vita. These whips were served on
all the 12 Councillors belonging to Janta Aghadi. Copies of the whips were
served on the Sub-Divisional Officer who was to conduct the elections in
question and were also pasted on a Board placed at the entrance of the meeting
hall. The validity of the nomination filed by respondent no.1 was objected to
on the ground of defiance of the whips issued by Janta Aghadi but the objection
was overruled. The election was held.
Nandkumar
Patil, the official candidate of Janta Aghadi received 9 votes as against 10
votes received by Vithal D.
Teke,
the respondent no.1. He was declared elected as President of the Municipal
Council. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 voted for the respondent no.1. A meeting
of Janta Aghadi was held on 19.12.1997. It was unanimously resolved not to
condone the defiance of whip by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. The appellant and
two other members of Janta Aghadi made a reference for disqualifying respondent
nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the membership of the Municipal Council under Section 3 of
the Act. After affording the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 an opportunity of hearing
and holding an enquiry as contemplated by the Act and the Rules, the Collector
declared the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 disqualified under the provisions of
the Act. The three respondents preferred three writ petitions before the High
Court which have been heard and disposed of by a common order impugned in these
appeals. The High Court has allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order
dated 22.6.1998 passed by the Collector.
Shri
Uday Lalit, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a clear case
of voting by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 contrary to the direction issued by the
political party to which respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 belonged was made out
attracting applicability of Section 3 (1)(b) and hence the High Court was not
justified in allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the well reasoned
and detailed order of the Collector. The learned counsel for respondent nos.1,
2 and 3 has supported the order of the High Court on very many grounds. For the
purpose of these appeals, it would suffice to deal with only one of the pleas
raised on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 in support of the order of the
High Court.
A
finding as to disqualification under the Act has the effect of unseating a
person from an elected office held by him pursuant to his victory at the polls
in accordance with democratic procedure of constituting a local authority. The
consequences befall not only him as an individual but also the constituency
represented by him which would cease to be represented on account of his having
been disqualified.
Looking
at the penal consequences flowing from an elected Councillor being subjected to
disqualification and its repercussion on the functioning of the local body as
also the city or township governed by the local body the provisions have to be
construed strictly. A rigorous compliance with the provisions of the Act and
the Rules must be shown to have taken place while dealing with a reference
under Section 7 of the Act.
In
Civil Appeal Nos.6266-6268/98 no rules or regulations of Janta Aghadi are shown
to have been filed with the Collector. The record does not show that any such
rules or regulations exist. Had they been there an effort could have been made
to find out authorisation to issue whip having been provided therein. During
the course of hearing we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show
any resolution of Janta Aghadi authorising the signatories of the whip to issue
the whip. No such resolution was filed before the Collector or the High Court
and not even shown to us. The contents of the whip do not also contain any
recital spelling out the existence of any such authorisation which also goes to
show that there was no such authorisation given. In the absence of proof of the
signatories of the whip having been authorised by the Janta Aghadi to issue the
whip the violation thereof would not attract the applicability of Section 3(1)(b)
of the Act. May be that the party, Aghadi or front had resolved to sponsor a
particular persons candidature at the election. Acting contrary to such
resolution, howsoever strongly worded, may render its member liable to
disciplinary proceedings at the party level. But to incur disqualification
under the Act there must be a direction issued and such direction must be
either by the party, Aghadi or front to which the Councillor proceeded against
belongs or be by any person or authority authorised in this behalf. Mere
resolution is not a substitute for direction. On this single ground alone the
judgment of the High Court deserves to be maintained.
Brief
facts and controversy in appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21085/98.
Elections
for constituting Municipal Council, Karad were held on 1.12.1996. Prior to the
election a group of persons formed a party under the
name of Nagar Vikas Aghadi and contested the election on the
common symbol of cycle. The Aghadi had set up 20 candidates out of which 11
were elected. The names of these 11 persons as belonging to Aghadi were submitted
to the District Collector as required in Form-Annexure I. The 11 Councillors
also submitted particulars and declaration in Form III as required by Rule
4. The
District Collector registered the names in a register maintained for the
purpose. The requisite gazette notification was also made on 16.1.1997. In the
meeting of the Municipal Council held on 17.12.1996 Smt. Archana Patel, a
councillor set up by Aghadi was elected unopposed as President of the Municipal
Council, Karad for a term of one year. The controversy relates to the time when
this term of one year was coming to an end and election of the President for
the next term was due to be held. A meeting of the Aghadi took place on
18.10.1997. All the 11 Councillors belonging to the Aghadi participated in the
meeting. A few independent Municipal Councillors and a few others were also
present at the meeting. In this meeting a unanimous resolution was passed
resolving that Dr. Erram, the President of the Aghadi, i.e., the parent body
which had set up the candidates for election shall have power to issue whip to
the members and in his absence Mr. Pawaskar, a Councillor would have power to
issue the whip. Dr. Erram was not a Municipal councillor. On 6.12.1997 again a
meeting of Aghadi took place in which all Municipal Councillors of the Aghadi
were present. The meeting was also attended to by two independent Councillors,
2 coopted Councillors and 2 supporters of the Aghadi. In this meeting a
unanimous resolution was passed that at the ensuing meeting of the Municipal
Council scheduled to be held on 12.12.1997 for electing President of the
Aghadi, Shri Ravindra Maruti Shinde shall be the candidate of the Aghadi.
It was
further resolved that the Municipal Councillors should positively remain
present at the meeting and vote for the official candidate of the Nagar Vikas
Aghadi, i.e., Shri Ravindra Maruti Shinde. The Municipal Councillors of Aghadi
were ordered not to remain absent from the meeting and not to cast any invalid
vote nor abstain from voting which if done shall be considered to be the
violation of whip. In terms of the resolution intimations were sent to the
Municipal Councillors belonging to Aghadi signed by Dr.
D.S.
Erram. The whip was sent by post under certificate of posting and also
published in local newspaper Daily Aikya dated 9.12.1997 on the front page
along with the photograph of candidate Shri Shinde. It was displayed on the
notice board of municipal council. We need not further belabour on this aspect
as communication or knowledge of the whip to the appellants has been held
proved by the Collector as also by the High Court and not seriously disputed at
the hearing before us. On 11.12.1997 the Collector and Election Officer, Karad
was informed that Shri Ravindra Maruti Shinde was the official candidate of the
Aghadi for the post of President and whip to that effect has also been issued.
The intimation is signed by Dr. Erram and Shri Pawaskar both in the capacity of
President, Nagar Vikas Aghadi and party leader Nagar Vikas Aghadi respectively.
The
whip issued to the Municipal Councillors was posted to their respective
addresses under Certificate of Posting.
In the
meeting of the Municipal Council held on 12th December, 1997, Smt. Balutai Bhimrao Suryawanshi,
the appellant no.4 offered her candidature for the post of President in
opposition to Shri Ravindra Mantri Shinde, the official candidate of the Aghadi
and was also declared elected. Smt. Balutai secured 16 votes while Shri Shinde
the official candidate of Aghadi secured 10 votes. All the four appellants
voted for Smt. Balutai. Another meeting of the Municipal Council was to be held
on 15th December, 1997 wherein certain important
resolutions were to be tabled.
Prior
to the meeting of the Municipal Council, a meeting of the Aghadi was convened
on 10th December, 1997 wherein also a whip was issued giving directions in
regard to the pattern of voting to be followed by the Municipal Councillors of
the Aghadi. The appellants defied the whip and voted to the contrary.
Shri
Pawaskar who was one of the signatories to the whip moved the Collector, Satara
complaining of disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) having been incurred by
the four appellants. The Collector after holding the enquiry arrived at a
finding upholding the complaint and declaring the appellants disqualified from
the membership of the Municipal Council under Section 7 of the Act. The
appellants put in issue the order of the Collector by filing writ petition
before the High Court of Bombay. The petition has been dismissed upholding the
findings recorded by the Collector.
The
aggrieved four Municipal Councillors have filed this appeal by special leave.
The
first submission made by Shri V.A. Mohta, the learned senior counsel for the
appellants is that the meeting held on 10.12.1997 cannot be said to be a
meeting of Aghadi or front and therefore any resolution passed therein was not
binding on the appellants. We find no merit in this submission. The meeting was
attended to by all the Councillors belonging to the Aghadi. A few others also
participated in the meeting. The resolution was unanimous.
Nothing
has been brought on record to suggest if there were any members other than
those present and participating in the meeting or those who were informed of
the meeting so as to hold that the meeting could not be called a meeting of the
Aghadi or front. The resolution passed was unanimous.
We do
not find any valid reason to hold the meeting not to be of Aghadi or front.
It was
next submitted that any copy of rules & regulations of the municipal party
or Aghadi or front have not been placed on record nor filed with the Collector
alongwith the statement in Form I and therefore the working of the Nagar Vikas
Aghadi and the person authorised to issue whip cannot be spelled out. This
contention has also to be rejected.
The
filing of the rules & regulations contemplated by clauses (b) & (c) of
sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 is for the purpose of registration of a municipal party
with the Collector.
For
the purpose of these appeals, we do not propose to go into the question as to
what would be the effect of absence of rules & regulations on the formation
of the Aghadi or front or the effect on the registration of non-filing of such
rules & regulation, if there be one, for two reasons.
Firstly,
the registration of municipal party is complete consequent upon the entries
having been made in the register Form IV and also having been notified in the
Government Gazette. Nobody has raised any objection to the registration of the
municipal party or validity thereof and sought for its cancellation. Secondly,
for the purpose of the controversy arising for decision in these appeals, we
could have spelled out from the rules & regulations, if available, who was
the person or authority authorised in this behalf for the purpose of issuing a
whip under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. In the case at hand, such an
authorisation was given in the resolution passed at the meeting dated
18.10.1997. It is nobodys case that such an authorisation was at any time
questioned or revoked.
Section
3(1)(b) does not provide for when and how such authorisation shall be given;
all that the provision contemplates is that there must be any person or
authority authorised in this behalf by the political party or Aghadi or front
to which the Councillor belongs. The language of the resolution clearly spells
out compliance with this requirement. Dr. Erram, the President of the Aghadi
and in his absence Shri Pawaskar, a Councillor, were specifically authorised to
issue a whip. The whips on the basis of which the disqualification is sought to
be spelled out are signed by Dr. Erram or by Dr. Erram and Shri Pawaskar both.
The whips issued satisfy the requirement of Section 3(1)(b) in view of the
specific authorisation given in this behalf.
Lastly,
it was submitted by Shri Mohta that Dr. Erram was the President of the parent
body but not a Councillor and hence not a member of the municipal party and
therefore he could not have been authorised to issue a whip. Section 3(1)(b)
requires any person or authority to be authorised in this behalf by the
political party or Aghadi or front. No provision either in the Act or in the
Rules has been brought to our notice in support of the submission made spelling
out that the person or authority authorised to issue the whip must be a Councillor
or a member of a municipal party.
For
the foregoing reasons we do not find any fault with the legality of the whip
having been issued. The whip did not suffer with any such deficiency as would
enable the whip being defied successfully and yet avoiding consequence of
disqualification.
For
the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are held liable to be dismissed and are
dismissed accordingly. No order as to the costs.
Back