N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, in the election held on 27-1-1987, got elected as members of the Hoskote Mandal Panchayath, Ramdurg Taluk, Belgaum District. The petitioners and several other members who were elected on Janatha Ticket were served with Party whips give by the President of the District Janatha Party directing the members of the Mandal Panchayath, including the petitioners, to vote in favour of the Party candidates for the posts of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan in the election meeting held on 22- 4-1987. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to respondent-3 herein, who had stood for election for the office of Pradhan, inspite of such Party Whips, the petitioner No. 1 remained absent intentionally from the meeting and the petitioners 2 and 3 had voted against the Party candidates. Accordingly election resulted in defeating the Party candidates, to which the petitioners belong. ( 3 ) HENCE, respondent-3 lodged a complaint before the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad of Belgaum District, requesting him to disqualify the petitioners from being continuing as members of the Mandal Panchayath as required under Section 4 (3) of the Karnataka Local Authority (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (for short 'the act'), as the petitioners had violated the Parly Whips. ( 4 ) THE said complaint came to be rejected by the Chief Secretary by his Order dated 5-5-1987, after issuing notice to the petitioners and hearing them, on the ground that the complaint should have been made before the Secretary of the Mandal panchayath with a request to transfer the said complaint to the Chief Secretary to take action instead of making complaint directly to the Chief Secretary. Hence it was held that the complaint lodged by respondent-3 as bad in law. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, respondent-3 wailed for nearly four months and lodged another complaint to the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, Belgaum, on 1-9-1987, as per Annexure-A, requesting to take action. ( 6 ) THE Chief Secretary, by his order dated 7-9-1987, disqualified the petitioners to continue as members of the Hoskote Mandal Panchayath (respondent-2 ). ( 7 ) THE said order came to be challenged by filing a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 13647 of 1987 by the petitioners before this Court. ( 6 ) THE Chief Secretary, by his order dated 7-9-1987, disqualified the petitioners to continue as members of the Hoskote Mandal Panchayath (respondent-2 ). ( 7 ) THE said order came to be challenged by filing a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 13647 of 1987 by the petitioners before this Court. By its order dated 14-3-1988 this Court partly allowed the petition, quashing the order made by the Chief secretary disqualifying the petitioners, and remitted the matter to Chief Secretary to rehear afresh after taking the explanation of the petitioners, as per Annexure-C. ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the said order at Annexure-C, once again the Chief Secretary entertained the complaint, issued notice to the parties concerned, including some of the persons cited by respondcnt-3, heard them, and passed an order dated 27-6-1989, as per Annexurc-D, disqualifying the petitioners (herein) from continuing as members of the Hoskote Mandal Panchayath, holding that they had violated the Party Whips in that they voated contrary to the directions of the Party to which they belonged. The said order is now under challenge in these Writ Petitions. ( 9 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the Chief Secretary, firstly, was notright in entertaining the complaint that was lodged nearly after about four months after the alleged act by the petitioners. Secondly, though the order of the Chief secretary, under challenge, is a lengthy one, there is nothing to show that any opportunity was given to these petitioners. Thirdly, there is also nothing to show that so called letters, which are styled as Parly Whips, were served to any of these petitioners, at any time. Fourthly, the complaint lodged by the complainant- respondent-3, was with an intention to take personal vengence against the petitioners. ( 10 ) WHEREAS, learned Advocate for respondent-3 submitted that the order passedby the Chief Secretary is a well considered order; that he has met with each and every point; that he was given sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned; that he has held that there was violation of the Party Whips by the petitioners given by the president of the Taluk Janatha Party; therefore, under Sections 3 (1 ) (b) and 4 of the act they deserved to be disqualified; and accordingly, the Chief Secretary was right in disqualifying the petitioners from continuing as members of the Mandal panchayath. ( 11 ) AFTER hearing both sides, I am fully convinced with the allegations and counter allegations made before the Chief Secretary and also the evidence that was recorded, that there is nothing to show that the Party Whip was, at any time, served to any one of the petitioners. In this order regarding disqualification-regarding non- serving of the Party Whips the persons concerned have stated as follows: "though the directions do not hear date of issue and outward number, only on these accounts and for want of issue registers it cannot be said that the directions are not genuine. In the circumstances of evidences of complainant's witnesses, district Party President's letter (C-2) and Karnataka Pradesh Janatha Party's letter (C-13), it has to be held that the directions arc genuine. " if such a finding is accepted, then there will be no need for any person just to reproduce a letter or some endorsement to show that the same was served. Principle of natural justice demands that before taking any penal action against any person, he has to be offered with sufficient opportunity of hearing. If a party had complained of non-production of a certain document, the same shall be made available. In the instant case no such attempt has been made by respondcnt-3 (complainant) before the authority concerned. Apart from this another defect is that the respondent-1 has clearly stated that the notice was forwarded to the Mandal Panchayath to inform his party members. Its service on petitioners not proved. This fact has been not taken into consideration by the Chief Secretary. ( 12 ) IN the absence of non-service of notice of said Party Whip, it is not proper to hold that the petitioners had violated the Party Whip. ( 13 ) ANOTHER strong point as against respondcnt-3 is,admittedly the election meeting to elect Pradhan and the Upa-Pradhan took place on 22-4-1987. Whereas he had lodged the complaint nearly after 14 days, i. e. , on 5-5-1987, directly to the Chief secretary which was rejected and, after its rejection the complainant waited for nearly 4 months and, again on 1-9-1987 he made the complaint to the Secretary of the mandal Panchayath who in turn had transferred the same to the Chief Secretary to take action according to law. These things will go to show that the complaint lodged by the complainant was not a genuine one. These things will go to show that the complaint lodged by the complainant was not a genuine one. Unfortunately, the Chief Secretary without taking into consideration all these aspects, had mechanically entertained the complaint submitted by respondent-3. No doubt the Chief Secretary had recorded the statements of many witnesses and allowed to mark so many documents, but he committed the mistake in not applying his mind in giving his finding as to whether there was service of letters containing the directions said to have been issued by the President of the Taluk Janatha Party, to the petitioners. This illegally will go to the root of the matter. Hence, the order of the Chief Secretary, though a detailed one, suffers from non-observing Principles of natural justice. Hence the same cannot be accepted as correct one based on admitted facts. Hence I am inclined to quash the order passed by the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad (Annexure-D ). ( 14 ) IN the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The order passed by the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad (respondent-1) is hereby quashed. However, the authorities are at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioners and rehear the matter after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned, ff Chief Secretary desires to hold fresh enquiry he shall give a definite and specific finding on the issue whether the letters containing Party Whip issued by the Party President was served on the Petitioners and then to dispose off the complaint within three months from this day. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .