BOPANNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the third round of litigation between the parties in this Court. Earlier in writ Petition No. 18473 of 1987 filed by the contesting respondents, this Court set aside the order of the Chief Secretary and directed the Chief Secretary to dispose of the complaint filed by Respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with law. Accordingly the complaint was taken on file by the Chief secretary and he made an order disqualifying the petitioners and five others from the membership of Mandal Panchayat. That order was challenged by the petitioners and five others in Writ Petitions Nos. 2444 of 1988 and 5526 to 5531 of 1988 This court quashed the second order made by the chief Secretary by its order dated 30-3-1988 and directed the Chief Secretary to dispose of the complaint of respondents 3 and 4 afresh after issue of notices to all parties concerned. Accordingly the Chief secretary issued notices to the parties and after hearing their counsel passed the order impugned herein disqualifying these two petitioners. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted regard being had to the consequences of an order of disqualification made under Section 3 (1) (b) of the karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of defection) Act, 1987 the Chief' Secretary should have held a proper enquiry into the complaint made against the petitioners but the order of the Chief Secretary is based on surmises and not on any proof as required under law. Therefore though the petitioners were given an opportunity of being heard through their counsel, the findings recorded against them are not supported by any evidence and hence this Court should interfere under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the direction made by this court, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Chief Secretary has produced the records of the proceedings. T have persued the records and I have been taken through the order of the Chief secretary. I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Government pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents. T have persued the records and I have been taken through the order of the Chief secretary. I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Government pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) ON a perusal of the records and also the impugned order, it cannot be disputed that the statements of the parties were not recorded by the Chief Secretary and they were not subjected to cross -examination in order to test the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint that these petitioners had been served with the party directive as required under the provisions of section 3 (1) (b) of the Act and despite the party directive they had contested contrary to the said directive. ( 5 ) BUT it is contended by the learned government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the other contesting respondents, namely, Respondents 3 and 4, that the records of the proceedings do disclose that the petitioners were aware of the party mandate and, therefore, the absence of a summary enquiry which was expected to be held on the complaint preferred by Respondents 3 and 4 should not invalidate the order. It is no doubt true that a complaint of this nature has to be tried as a quasi criminal case and the plea of defection should be established beyond all reasonable doubt. So, when a complaint is made under Section 3 ( 1 ) (b) of the Act, the adjudicating officer has to hold a summary enquiry by examining the complaint and his witnesses, if any, on oath and subject them to cross - examination by the persons against whom the complaint is preferred and likewise record the statements of those persons and their witnesses if any and subject them to cross - examination and confront them with the documents said to have been produced against them and record their say in regard to these documents unless the parties choose to stand by their complaint and the objections thereto and the documents on record. This means that there shall essentially be a summary enquiry on the complaint under Section 3 (1) (b) of the act. Whether such enquiry is necessary on the facts of this case would arise for consideration. This means that there shall essentially be a summary enquiry on the complaint under Section 3 (1) (b) of the act. Whether such enquiry is necessary on the facts of this case would arise for consideration. ( 6 ) I have been taken through the order of the Chief Secretary and I must say that the chief Secretary, though he has written an elaborate order running to 14 foolscap pages, has not applied himself to the facts of this case in order to record a finding against the petitioners on the question of alleged defection. To quote his own words:"if they have been elected as members of the Mandal Panchayat on Janata ticket it is actually not acceptable that one of the Janata member seeking support of another party get elected as Pradhan or upa-pradhan. As no evidence has been submitted to the contrary the directions of the Taluk Janata Party which is further collaborated by the District Janatha party will have to be treated as a direction of political party for the purpose of Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act. "i am at loss to understand what the Chief secretary meant by the word 'collaborated' and by the words "as no evidence has been submitted to the contrary". No evidence was recorded in the case. Therefore, there would not have been any evidence to the contrary. Perhaps, what he meant by the word 'collaborated' was 'corroborated' and the distinction in the meaning of the words 'colloborated' and 'corroborated' should have been noticed by him while making the impugned order. In order to satisfy myself, whether the mistake was accidental, I had secured the records through the learned government Pleader and I find that the impugned order was corrected by the Chief secretary in his own handwriting and the corrections made by him were attested by him in every page of the order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the errors committed by him in the said order were by inadvertance. Such mistakes would not be in the interest of proper functioning of the Zilla parishad or Mandal Panchayat which have been ushered in this State with great expectations by the legislature and since the common people are looking towards these institutions with very high hopes, they are entitled to expect a better account from the functionaries who are charged with the duty of implementing the provisions of the karnataka Zilla Parishats, Taluk Panchayat samithis, Mandal Panchayaths and Nyaya panchayats Act, 1983. An order disqualifying a member on the ground of defection is an order debarring him from public life in so far as it relates to Mandal panchayats and, therefore, it is expected of the Chief Secretary that he should take more care while dealing with such matters in future. ( 7 ) ON merits, I would have been inclined to set aside the order and remit the matter to the Chief Secretary for fresh adjudication after holding a summary enquiry. But, the records disclose that the petitioners were aware of the Party mandate and notwithstanding the party mandate they contested the election and won against the official candidate and hence it would not be proper for this Court, when substantial justice has been done to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. The 2 documents in the records which cannot be seriously challenged are Annexure B which is the proceedings of the Mandal Panchayat meetings held on 22-4-1987 recorded on the day the election to the Mandal Panchayat took place and the copy of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners. The records disclose that the petitioners are the signatories to the proceedings in Annexure ( 8 ) IN the first page of the proceedings it is recorded that the name of Respondent - 4 was proposed as the official candidate and in term s of the letter of the Taluk Janatha Party president his name was proposed by one lakkappa Rogi and seconded by Sharnappa channappa. The names of the candidates who voted for him are found at page 2 of the proceedings. As many as 13 members of the mandal Panchayat voted for him and his name was suggested as the official candidate by the Janatha Party and proposed and seconded by the other Janatha Party members of the Mandal Panchayat. Hence petitioner 1kanthanagouda could not have contested the election for the post of pradhan. As many as 13 members of the mandal Panchayat voted for him and his name was suggested as the official candidate by the Janatha Party and proposed and seconded by the other Janatha Party members of the Mandal Panchayat. Hence petitioner 1kanthanagouda could not have contested the election for the post of pradhan. All the same he got himself proposed by one Mallikarjuna Shivabasappa medalagi and seconded by Channappa shivabasappa and he secured 1 5 votes and thereby he defeated the official candidate, i. e. , Respondent - 4. On the last page of the proceedings there is an endorsement to the effect that: What all this means is that Petitioner - 1 who was elected as Pradhan and Petitioner - 2 who was elected as Upapradhan did not produce any party letter. From this endorsement it is maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners did not receive any party directive directing them not to contest against the official candidate and, therefore, that endorsement is sufficient to prove that the petitioners did not incur any disqualification under Section 3 (1 ) (b) of the act. If the last line of that endorsement is taken out of context the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be justified. But, if this endorsement is read along with the entire proceedings of the mandal Panchayat dated 22-4-1987 there could be no doubt that what the prescribed officer meant to say is these 2 petitioners contested the election and were elected despite the absence of the party mandate supporting their candidature. Apart from this document, the petitioners' own averments in the writ petition filed earlier, i. e. , W. P. No. 2444 of 1988 which is produced as Annexure R-3 show that respondents 3 and 4 were proposed as official candidates for the posts of Pradhan and Upa - pradhan and the elections to those posts were to be held on 22-4-1987. But all the same, the petitioners have averred that these nominations were contrary to the desire of many elected persons of Donur mandal Panchayat elected on Janata Party ticket. What Section 3 (1) (b) prescribes is that there shall be a party directive to the candidate contesting for the post of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan. The desire of the elected members of the Mandal Panchayat is not material for deciding the correctness of the party directive. What Section 3 (1) (b) prescribes is that there shall be a party directive to the candidate contesting for the post of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan. The desire of the elected members of the Mandal Panchayat is not material for deciding the correctness of the party directive. Party's directive overrides the desire of the members of the Mandal panchayat. Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act imposes a duty on the members to vote on the lines suggested by the party mandate. In the circumstances, even on 20 4-1987, i. e. , 2 days prior to the election to the offices of pradhan and Upa-pradhan the petitioners were aware that Respondents 3 and 4 were the official candidates for being elected to the post of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan. These 2 documents do show that a direction had been issued by the Party President to the petitioners and/or that they were made known about it from the right quarters. Petitioners could have produced the necessary evidence by examining their own witness in order to prove that the Janatha party president did not have any authority to issue the directive. The letter of the Janatha president was there on the records and the petitioners has access to such records. Even otherwise I am satisfied from the records that the person who had the authority to issue the party mandate had made known to the petitioners that they should not contest the election against the official candidate. In my view, after examining the entire materia on record, it is established that the petitioners had violated the party mandate contrary to the provisions of Section 3 (1 ) (b) of the Act and hence this is not a fit matter for interference under Article 226 of the constitution. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .