Through this writ petition, the petitioners seek to question the validity of Chief Electoral Officers order dated 28-11-06 by virtue of which they have been disqualified and order dated 18-4-07 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu whereby their appeal against the order of Chief Electoral Officer, has been dismissed. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that for 13 seats of Councillors in Municipal Committee, Doda elections were held on 12-2-2005, in which 8 candidates of National Conference, 4 Candidates of Congress-I and one independent candidate were elected as Councillors. Both the petitioners in this writ petition were admittedly elected as Municipal Councillors on the mandate of National Conference. a political party. The Municipal Councillors elected respondent No.4 as President of the Municipal Committee, Doda by majority vote on 28-8-2006. Later on "No Confidence" motion was moved against the President (respondent No.4) who had also been elected as a Municipal Councillor on the mandate of National Conference political party. When the motion came up for consideration before the House it was passed resulting into the ouster of respondent No.4 from the post of President, Municipal Committee, Doda. 3. For electing a new President, meeting was convened on 29-8-2006 and it was resolved that new Notification should be issued for inviting nominations/candidatures for the President-ship of the Municipal Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Doda issued the Notification on 31-8-2006 whereby the following election schedule was formulated: S.No. Particulars Date and Time 1. Initial date of filing nomination forms 01-09-2006 from 10 AM to 4 PM 2. Last date of receiving nomination forms 03-09-2006 upto 4 PM 3. Scrutiny of nomination forms/papers 04-09-2006 from 10 AM to 2 PM 4. Withdrawal of nomination papers 05-09-2006 from 2 PM to 4 PM 5. Date if Meeting at which the election of President is to be held. 05-09-2006 at 12 `O Clock in Municipal Committee Office, Doda. 4. For the said election the petitioner No.1 filed his nomination paper on 3-9-2006, after having been proposed by respondent No.2 another Municipal Councillor elected on the mandate of National Conference political party, as an independent candidate whereas respondent No.4 Zaffar Ullah Rather was the candidate sponsored by National Conference political party. 4. For the said election the petitioner No.1 filed his nomination paper on 3-9-2006, after having been proposed by respondent No.2 another Municipal Councillor elected on the mandate of National Conference political party, as an independent candidate whereas respondent No.4 Zaffar Ullah Rather was the candidate sponsored by National Conference political party. On 31-8-2006 Sheikh Nazir Ahmed, General Secretary of National Conference party issued the following Whip:- "As directed by the President, J&K National Conference, you Asif Jan Gatu S/O Ghulam Hassan Gatu R/O Doda Municipal Councilor Ward No. 8 Municipal Committee, Doda is directed to vote for party candidate. Mr. Zaffar-Ullah Rather Municipal Councillor Ward No. 13 for the post of President Municipal Committee, Doda. You are also directed that you will note vote against party candidate in any No Confidence Motion, the same will be treated as you Asif Jan Gatu S/O Ghulam Hassan Gatu R/O Doda Municipal Councillor Ward No.8 Municipal Committee Doda having defected which will entail the provisions of Defection Law under the J&K Municipal Act and Rules." 5. Similar Whip was issued to petitioner No.2 also. 6. On 5-9-2006 the elections were held and petitioner No.1 Asif Jan Gattu, Municipal Councillor Ward No.8 Doda was declared to have been elected as President, Municipal Committee, Doda for having secured seven votes out of thirteen. 7. The defeated Councillor, respondent No.4, the official candidate of National Conference party and another Councillor, filed a reference petition before the Chief Electoral Officer, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar in terms of section 18-A (1) (b) of the J&K Municipal Act for declaring the petitioner Asif Jan Gattu, who stood elected to the post of President and petitioner No.2, who had proposed his name disqualified. The case projected before the Chief Electoral Officer by respondent No.4 and another Councillor was that for having voted against the official candidate of National Conference political party in violation of the Whip they were liable for dis-qualification. 8. The learned Chief Electoral Officer vide his order dated 28-11-2006 allowed the reference and disqualified the petitioners. The petitioners preferred statutory appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 18-4-2007. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. First contention of Mr. 8. The learned Chief Electoral Officer vide his order dated 28-11-2006 allowed the reference and disqualified the petitioners. The petitioners preferred statutory appeal before the J&K Special Tribunal, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 18-4-2007. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. First contention of Mr. Johal, learned counsel for the petitioners is that for attracting section 18-A (1) (b) the proof of issuance of a Whip by the competent person and service thereof upon the petitioners was necessary. He submits that no Whip was ever served upon the petitioners nor any proof of issuance of any Whip by a competent person and service thereof upon the petitioners was available on record, therefore, both the Courts below erred in holding the petitioners liable for disqualification. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 however, contends that the petitioners in their reply to the reference petition have not denied the issuance and service of Whip upon them, therefore, proving of issuance of Whip and service thereof upon the petitioners was not necessary in the present case. According to him only such facts which have been denied by the opposite party are required in law to be proved by the party alleging those facts. 11. The pleadings of the parties on the issue need to be noticed. 12. In para No.6 of the petition, respondent No.4 alleged as follows: "That on 31st of August, 2006 Jammu and Kashmir National Conference through its General Secretary being authorized person, issued whip against all the 8 councilors of its party including the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 and 2 to vote for party candidate petitioner NO.2 of Municipal Councillor Ward No. 13 for the post of President Municipal Committee Doda and had also whip not to vote in any no-confidence motion against the party candidate. The whip so issued has been received by the respondent No.1 and 2 upon which they have put their signatures in token of having received the same. The copy of the whips so issued under No. GS/JKNC/101/2006 and GS/JKNC/S/102/2006 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4 and P-5 respectively." 13. The whip so issued has been received by the respondent No.1 and 2 upon which they have put their signatures in token of having received the same. The copy of the whips so issued under No. GS/JKNC/101/2006 and GS/JKNC/S/102/2006 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4 and P-5 respectively." 13. The petitioners replied the allegations made in para 6 in para 4 of their reply in the following manner:- "Para 6 is denied for want of knowledge, the petitioners be put to strict proof to prove the averments contained in the para, however, alternatively in reply thereto it is submitted that as per the records in Municipal Committee Doda, no political party have elected any leader/office bearer/whip in Municipal Committee, Doda till date as all the members are functioning in their individual capacities, this fact is borne out from the certificate/letter of respondent No.3. Copy whereof is appended herewith as Annexure-B. Further it is submitted that whip of any political party in any legislative body/Municipal Committee etc. etc shall be notified to the Speaker/Chairman/President/Secretariat/Committee as the case may be, indicating and suggesting the persons amongst the elected representatives of political party empowered with the role of issuing whip to his party colleagues in matters of business conducted inside the house/committee. As reported by the respondent a No.3 supra no such whip/leader/office bearer of any political party was having any person with whip powers as per the records. So how can a whip be issued by persons claiming to be organizational persons, as is being claimed by the case, which though of course is denied. In case an organizer/person of any political party is allowed to issue whips like the one claimed, then that would be definitely interference in the process of discussing/debating legislative business inside house/committee where the members are solely concerned with the purpose of achieving public good in motion of providing civil amenities, without fail. In case an organizer/person of any political party is allowed to issue whips like the one claimed, then that would be definitely interference in the process of discussing/debating legislative business inside house/committee where the members are solely concerned with the purpose of achieving public good in motion of providing civil amenities, without fail. So one fails to understand how and in what manner some person claiming himself to be an organizational person could desist an elected member/s of legislative body to do or not to do a particular thing in a particular way, which thing/business is quite invisible to the external person nor party to the debate or business and therefore, the whip under election laws are to be issued by a person amongst the elected representatives of a political party, who is the only authorized and recognized person/s for issuing any such whip. It is further submitted that the answering respondents as conscious citizens could not be expected to remain mute spectators to all the mis-deeds of petitioner No.2, who has been prima facie found involved in land grabbing case, besides having not taken the responsibility as President, sensitively in desire with fulfilling the object of public good in the area for providing them timely civic amenities and as the petitioner failed to convene meetings for months together despite demands and result of same was that public suffered as their interests were defeated and interests were such which nobody can be expected to do delay, as the interests deal with sanitation/health, besides other things of residents of Municipal Committee, Doda, so that too was a circumstance which did not allow answering respondent to sit idle anywhere as their patience have crossed limits by the rigid attitude of petitioner No.2 and his mentors and under whose guidance and advice he was working prejudicially to the rights of the people of area and therefore, the answering respondent rose to the occasion simply to provide a letter bid succors to the needy people of far flung area in matters of civil amenities and planned development. Consequently the respondent No.1 was elected as President of Municipal Committee, Doda after having already complied with the procedure in holding the fresh elections for the said post" 14. Consequently the respondent No.1 was elected as President of Municipal Committee, Doda after having already complied with the procedure in holding the fresh elections for the said post" 14. From the bare reading of the above reply, it is manifest that the petitioners specifically neither admitted the issuance of Whip and service thereof upon them nor specifically denied the same. Law of pleadings is well settled. Evasive denial is no denial in the eyes of law. Unless denial of an alleged fact is specific it is to be deemed as admitted. Since the petitioners have not put up specific denial it is to be presumed that they have admitted the issuance and receipt of the Whip. The petitioners even did not raise such plea before the learned Chief Electoral Officer. The pleas pressed into service by the petitioners have been summarized in the order impugned passed by the Chief Electoral Officer in the following terms:- " (i) that the petitioner No.2 was quite aware of the no-confidence motion and it is absolutely incorrect to say that the motion of no-confidence was taken behind his back (petitioner) and that proper procedure was adopted and carried in tabling the no-confidence motion and (announcing) the results thereof; (ii) That the whip of any political party in any Legislative body/Municipal Committee shall be notified to the speaker/Chairman/President/Secretariat/Committee as the case may be indicating and suggesting the person amongst the elected representative of political party empowered with the mote of issuing whip to his party colleagues in matter of business conducted in the house/committee. (iii) That as per records in Municipal Committee, Doda no political party has elected any leader/office bearer/whip in Municipal Committee Doda and all the members are functioning in their individual capacities; that no whip can be issued by any organizational persons as is being claimed in the case. (iv) That in case an organization/person of any political party is allowed to issue whips like the one claimed, then that would be definitely interference in the process of discussing/debating legislative business inside house/committee where the members are solely concerned with the purpose of achieving public good in matters of providing civic amenities, without fail. (iv) That in case an organization/person of any political party is allowed to issue whips like the one claimed, then that would be definitely interference in the process of discussing/debating legislative business inside house/committee where the members are solely concerned with the purpose of achieving public good in matters of providing civic amenities, without fail. So one fails to understand how and in what manner some person claiming himself to be an organizational person could desist an elected members of legislative body to do or not to do a particular thing in a particular way, which thing/business is quire invisible to the external person not party to the debate or business and therefore, the whip under election laws are to be issued by a person amongst the elected representatives of a political party, who is the only authorized and recognized person/s for issuing any such whip. It is further submitted that the answering respondents as conscious citizens could not be expected to remain mute spectators to all the mis-deeds of petitioner No.2 2who has been prima-facie found involved in land grabbing case, besides having not taken the responsibility as President, sensitively in desire with fulfilling the object of public good in the area for providing them timely civic amenities and as the petitioner failed to convene meetings for months together despite demands and result of same was that public suffered as their interests were defeated and interests were such which no body can be expected to delay, as the interests deal with sanitation/health, besides other things of residents of Municipal Committee, Doda that too was a circumstance which did not allow answering respondent to sit idle anymore, as their patience have crossed limits by the rigid any more as their patience have crossed limits by the rigid attitude of petitioner No.2 and his mentors and under whose guidance and advice he was working prejudicially to the rights of the people of area and therefore, the answering respondent rose to the occasion simply to provide a little bid succors to the needy people of far flung area in matters of civic amenities and planned development. Consequently the respondent No.1 was elected as President of Municipal Committee, Doda after having strictly complied with the procedure in holding the fresh elections for the said post. Consequently the respondent No.1 was elected as President of Municipal Committee, Doda after having strictly complied with the procedure in holding the fresh elections for the said post. (v) That the removal of petitioner No.2 as President as well as election to the post of reminder period was conducted and carried in conformity with law and rules and no infirmity/discrepancy can be said to have been done in the said process besides the alleged violation of law embodied under Municipal Act is legally misconceived proposition and the respondents cannot be said to have earned any disqualification as contended." It is thus evident that the petitioners neither denied the receipt of the whip in their pleadings nor projected such contention before the learned Chief Electoral Officer. 15. Both the Courts below have accepted that Whip was issued and served upon the petitioners. Such a finding of fact recorded by the learned Chief Electoral Officer and up-held by the learned Special Tribunal being not perverse is not open to judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 16. Mr. Johal, therefore, cannot successfully urge that Whip was neither issued nor served upon the petitioners. 17. Mr. Johal further contends that whip was not against the putting up the candidature in the election but was against voting against respondent No.4. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had voted against respondent No.4. He submits that voting being by secret ballot, there could be no proof that the petitioners voted against respondent No.4. There being no strong proof of the fact the petitioners voted against respondent No.4, the Courts below could not have legally presumed that they voted against respondent No.4, so as to hold them liable to be disqualified in terms of section 18 (1) (b). 18. There being no strong proof of the fact the petitioners voted against respondent No.4, the Courts below could not have legally presumed that they voted against respondent No.4, so as to hold them liable to be disqualified in terms of section 18 (1) (b). 18. Section 18- A of Municipal Act reads thus:- "18-A. Disqualification on ground of defection: (1) A member of a Municipality belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the Municipality- (a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or (b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such Municipality contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorized by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned in writing by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a person who on the commencement of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act 2005 is a member of a Municipality (whether elected or nominated as such) shall, where he was a member of a political party, immediately before such commencement be deemed, for the purposes of sub-section (1), to have been elected as a member of such Municipality as a candidate set up by such political party." From the bare reading of the above Section, it is manifest that a member of the Municipality belonging to a political party who votes or abstains from voting in such Municipality contrary to any direction issued by such political party or by any person or authority authorized by such political party in this behalf, earns disqualification provided he has not obtained prior permission for not so voting or abstention or such not voting or abstention has not been condoned by his political party within 15 days. Therefore, for invoking the said provision for disqualifying a person the following ingredients must be satisfied:- (a) that he belongs to a political party and is a member of a Municipality; (b) that the political party or any person authorized by it in this behalf to which he belongs must have issued a direction relating to the voting manner in the Municipality as its member; (c) That he has violated such direction of such political party or any person authorized by it in this behalf without obtaining prior permission; and (d) Such violation of such direction has not been condoned in writing by such political party within 15 days. In the present case the petitioners are the members of the Municipality, Doda having been elected on the mandate of National Conference Political Party. They are to be presumed to have received the direction/whip issued by the Secretary of said political party. It cannot be disputed that National Conference fielded respondent No.4 as its candidate for the post of President with a direction to the petitioners to vote for its candidate. 19. It is also not in dispute that one of the petitioners filed his nomination on being proposed by the other petitioner against the candidate (respondent No.4 of the National Conference Political party as an independent candidate. 20. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner No.2 contested the election and was elected as President for having secured 7 votes against the party candidate, respondent No.4, who secured 6 votes though National Conference was having 8 members strength in the composition in which Congress Party had 4 members, BJP had 2 while one was independent. 21. According to Mr. Sethi the above pattern is strongly suggestive of the fact that the petitioners had not voted in favour of the National Conference Candidate. Had they voted respondent No.4 would have got 8 votes as National Conference had 8 members in the house. It can very well be presumed that petitioner No.1 voted in his own favour while petitioner No.2 voted in favour of petitioner No.1 being his proposer. 22. According to Mr. Johal, unless it is established against the petitioners that they in fact voted against respondent No.4 they cannot be held liable for disqualification. He submits that as voting was by secret ballot, therefore, there can be no presumption of petitioners voting against respondent No.4. 22. According to Mr. Johal, unless it is established against the petitioners that they in fact voted against respondent No.4 they cannot be held liable for disqualification. He submits that as voting was by secret ballot, therefore, there can be no presumption of petitioners voting against respondent No.4. Therefore, unless it is established that voting was in fact made on the said lines it cannot be said definitely and beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt that petitioners have voted against respondent No.4. 23. Admittedly the voting was by Secret ballot therefore, it cannot certainly be said as to who voted in favour of whom. Though it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioners voted against the party candidate- respondent No.4 yet in view of the fact that petitioner No.1 contested the election as independent candidate on being proposed by petitioner No.2 against National Conference candidate which had 8 members and secured 7 votes in a house where strength of Congress-I was 4; BJP -2 and independent- 1 and the votes polled by National Conference Candidate were 6, probabilities based on the voting pattern strongly suggest that the petitioners did not vote in favour of the National Conference party candidate despite having received the direction for voting in his favour. Therefore, question arising for consideration is "Whether for establishing the charge of cross-voting against a person in terms of Section 18-A (1) (b) of the Municipal Act it is necessary to prove beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt that he has in fact voted against his party candidate in whose favour he was to vote as per the direction of his political party?. 24. In my view in a case under section 18-A the fact of cross voting is not required to be proved beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt like a criminal case. If proof of such fact in the manner facts are required to be proved in criminal case is to be insisted upon then a healthy provision enacted in section 18-A of Municipal Act would be rendered redundant because voting under section 293 Municipal Act is mandatorily to be by secret ballot and as such, it would not be possible for any one to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a particular person has voted against or in favour of any particular candidate. Such cannot be the intention of the legislature. Such cannot be the intention of the legislature. The fact of cross-voting therefore, can be validly proved on the preponderance of probabilities like a civil case. 25. As already said going by the probability factor it can be said to have been established from the admitted facts and voting pattern that petitioners voted against the party candidate and thus violated the direction of the political party to which they belonged. 26. Next contention of Mr. Johal is that the election in issue was not on political party lines, President of the Municipality, Doda was to be elected from amongst the members who had come to be elected on the mandate of different political parties. According to him political parties have no role to play in the in-house election therefore, no direction/whip could be legally issued on the subject. Therefore, even if the petitioners have violated any direction/Whip it is of no consequence. 27. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Johal. Section 18-A refers to the elected members of the municipality belonging to political parties. They being the representatives of their respective political parties on whose mandate they have been elected, are bound to follow the philosophy, policy and direction of that party. If one is not in agreement with the philosophy, policy, or direction of his own political party, it is always open to him to leave that party and re-contest the election, after vacating the seat. So long as he is member of a political party, he cannot be allowed to defy the direction of his political party. With a view to arrest defections and indiscipline of the elected members of political parties while voting in internal elections of the Municipalities, Section 18-A has been enacted. The petitioners have abused their position while being members of their political party and have violated the direction. The petitioner No.1 was directed to vote in favour of respondent No.4 by his own political party and instead he himself put up his candidature against respondent No.4 on being proposed by petitioner No.2 who stood also directed to vote for respondent No.4. Such conduct of the petitioners was in clear violation of the Whip/direction issued. The petitioner No.1 was directed to vote in favour of respondent No.4 by his own political party and instead he himself put up his candidature against respondent No.4 on being proposed by petitioner No.2 who stood also directed to vote for respondent No.4. Such conduct of the petitioners was in clear violation of the Whip/direction issued. The direction to vote in favour of a particular candidate issued to a person in itself implicitly includes a direction that he would not set up himself a candidate against such candidate or propose the name of some one else as a candidate against the candidate in favour of whom he has been directed to vote. 28. The further contention of Mr. Johal that no Whip can be valid unless its prior information has not been furnished to the electoral officer is also without any merit, there being no such requirement of any law governing elections to the Municipality. 29. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Connected CMPs shall also stand dismissed. Record of the J&K Special Tribunal and authorities below be sent back forthwith.