( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27. 3. 2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 i. e. Designated Authority, constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Provision For Disqualification Of Members Of Local Authorities For Defection Act, 1986 allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and declaring the petitioners disqualified for the post of Councilors under the Defection Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are Members of Khambhat Nagarpalika. They were the candidates set up by Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP ). The general elections of Khambhat Nagarpalika were held on 25. 10. 2005 wherein the petitioners, who were candidates in the said election, were declared elected from different posts of Nagarpalika. An agenda was issued by the District Collector, Anand whereby all the Members of the Nagarpalika were informed that a meeting of the Members of Khambhat Nagarpalia would take place on 5. 5. 2008 for the purpose of holding election of President and Vice President. A letter was addressed by the President of State Unit of BJP on 3. 5. 2008 to the President of District Unit, Anand BJP wherein it was informed that Shri Zaverbhai Govindbhai Solanki and Shri Jayrambhai Kanjibhai Chunara are the candidates for the posts of President and Vice-President of Khambhat Nagarpalika and accordingly it was directed to issue mandate to all the Members. The District Unit President, Anand District BJP issued a whip to all the Members of BJP to vote in the elections of President and Vice President for the aforesaid two persons, namely, Shri Zaverbhai Govindbhai Solanki and Shri Jayrambhai Kanjibhai Chunara respectively. ( 3 ) AN application was submitted by the petitioners on 5. 5. 2008 to the Chief Officer of Khambhat Nagarpalika regarding forming of a separate group wherein it is stated that total strength of Members of Nagarpalia is 36. Out of these 36 Members, BJP has 23 Members and the remaining 13 Members belongs to Congress or independent group. It is also stated in the said letter that since they are 12 in number, they may be declared as separate group and necessary permission be granted to them to sit separately. The Chief Officer, vide his letter dated 5. 5. 2008 informed the petitioners that they could form a separate group. It is also stated in the said letter that since they are 12 in number, they may be declared as separate group and necessary permission be granted to them to sit separately. The Chief Officer, vide his letter dated 5. 5. 2008 informed the petitioners that they could form a separate group. The meeting was held for election of President and Vice President. The petitioner No. 2, namely, Revaben Shankarbhai Chauhan, offered herself for the post of President. Accordingly, in the election held on 5. 5. 2008 for the post of President she secured 25 votes and Shri Zaverbhai Govindbhai Solanki secured 11 votes. For the post of Vice President Shri Jayrambhai Kanjibhai Chunara came to be declared elected. Pursuant to this election result, the President of BJP State Unit passed an order on 6. 5. 2008 suspending the petitioners from BJP and asked to show cause as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against them for committing breach of mandate. ( 4 ) AN application was filed by the respondent No. 1 being Application No. 26 of 2008 before the Designated Authority under Section 3 of the Act wherein the respondent No. 1 has prayed for declaration that all the petitioners are held to be disqualified. Pursuant to this application, the petitioners have received notice dated 9. 6. 2008 from the Designated Authority who happened to be the Managing Director of Gujarat Tourisam Corporation, calling upon the petitioners to submit their reply within one week and directed them to make their submissions on 18. 6. 2008. The petitioners have raised questions regarding jurisdiction of the Designated Authority before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8152 of 2008. In the said petition the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 10. 7. 2008 admitted the petition and granted stay against the further proceedings. The State filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 938 of 2008 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench vide its order dated 16. 7. 2008 allowed the said Letters Patent Appeal of the State. In the meantime, the State Government transferred the proceedings to the Secretary, Sports, Youth and Cultural Department. ( 5 ) THE petitioners, thereafter, submitted preliminary objections/affidavit-in-reply on 26. 12. The Division Bench vide its order dated 16. 7. 2008 allowed the said Letters Patent Appeal of the State. In the meantime, the State Government transferred the proceedings to the Secretary, Sports, Youth and Cultural Department. ( 5 ) THE petitioners, thereafter, submitted preliminary objections/affidavit-in-reply on 26. 12. 2008 in Application No. 26 of 2008 wherein the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the application preferred by the respondent No. 1 is not maintainable and, therefore, the preliminary objections be considered first. The petitioners have also submitted further explanation on 9. 1. 2009 wherein the petitioners have requested the Designated Authority to hear and decide those objections. The petitioners have, therefore, insisted that the maintainability of the Application should be decided first. The Designated Authority vide its order dated 2. 2. 2009 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order dated 2. 2. 2009 passed by the Designated Authority, preferred Special Civil Application No. 1061 of 2009 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 10. 2. 2009 directing the petitioners to raise objection before the Designated Authority. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted detailed reply on 17. 2. 2009 and further submitted an application that they want to cross-examine certain persons. The petitioners have further filed an application before the Designated Authority requesting to allow them for leading oral evidence. The petitioners have also submitted written arguments on 26. 2. 2009. The Designated Authority vide its order dated 27. 3. 2009 has accepted and allowed the Application filed by the respondent No. 1 and held that the petitioners are liable to be removed as Members of Khambhat Nagarpalika. ( 6 ) IT is this order of the Designated Authority which is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition. ( 7 ) MR. P. K. JANI, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Dilip B. Rana, for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Designated Authority is unconstitutional, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Act as well as Rules framed thereunder and hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court. He has further submitted that the impugned order suffers from total non-application of mind since the contention raised by the petitioners in their application are not at all considered nor the submissions are dealt with in any manner. He has further submitted that the impugned order suffers from total non-application of mind since the contention raised by the petitioners in their application are not at all considered nor the submissions are dealt with in any manner. He has further submitted that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 does not reflect any cause of action. It is also not stated any wherein the application as to how the provisions of the Defection Act can be invoked against the petitioners. He has further submitted that the Designated Authority has committed an error in registering the application filed by the respondent No. 1 since it was incumbent upon him to first verify that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 meets with the necessary requirements of valid and proper application. He has further submitted that the documents annexed with the application as well as annexures are required to be verified in the manner as laid down under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Despite the fact that the said requirements have not been satisfied while preferring the application, the Designated Authority has registered the said application under the provisions of the Defection Act. He has further submitted that the mandate given by the political party is not the mandate in the eye of law. The mandate which is referred to and relied upon and which is the basis of filing the application by respondent No. 1, is not satisfying the requirements of valid mandate in the eyes of law and in this view of the matter the proceedings filed against the petitioners are required to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that there is no reference in the mandate that non-compliance of the same would result into disqualification and, therefore, in absence of such verification the same is not a mandate in the eyes of law. ( 8 ) MR. JANI has further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has relied upon the whip issued by the President of District Unit of BJP. The said whip is also not whip or direction in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is not having any efficacy. ( 8 ) MR. JANI has further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has relied upon the whip issued by the President of District Unit of BJP. The said whip is also not whip or direction in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is not having any efficacy. In a democratic country like India all political parties are required to function on democratic principles and, therefore, when any mandate and/or whip is to be issued it is the duty of a party to see that any candidate's name either unilaterally or by majority vote should be agreed upon. He has submitted that duty is cast upon BJP to call and convene the meeting of all the Members elected on BJP ticket before election of President. In Khambhat Nagarpalika since there are 23 Members elected on BJP tickets a meeting was required to be called for of all the Members and, thereafter, the subject regarding nomination of candidates for the post of President and Vice President was required to be discussed. Thereafter, only those names can be sent to the appropriate authority, who would thereafter issue the directives to the Members and, therefore, the Members are required to observe and follow the said mandate. No such procedure is undertaken in the present case and straightway some names are suggested through different sources. He has, therefore, submitted that it is incumbent upon any political party to first arrive at a name of candidate in the aforesaid democratic process and, thereafter, issue a mandate or directive. If this is not done and some one's name is referred to, it is not a mandate or a directive which can be said to be democratic or valid in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that out of 23 Members belonging to BJP, 12 Members had openly not agreed with the name of candidates. This shows that no exercise was done for passing a Resolution to declare the candidates for the post of President. ( 9 ) MR. He has further submitted that out of 23 Members belonging to BJP, 12 Members had openly not agreed with the name of candidates. This shows that no exercise was done for passing a Resolution to declare the candidates for the post of President. ( 9 ) MR. JANI has further submitted that the State Government has introduced Rule 10-A of the Gujarat Provisions for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules, 1987, which says that, councillor of Municipal Corporation or the Municipality or a Member of the Panchayat who is elected on the symbol of political party shall while attending any meeting of Municipal Corporation or the Municipality or a Panchayat ensure whether any mandate is issued by such political party and if any mandate is issued by such political party, he shall obtain such mandate from such political party, or by any person or authority authorized by it. The Chair-person of any meeting of Municipal Corporation or the Municipality or Panchayat shall verify that such a mandate has been issued by the political party, and circulated to the councilor of Municipal Corporation or the Member of Municipality or a Member of the Panchayat. Thus, a negative burden is cast upon a member that he has received a mandate or he is required to receive mandate. This Rule 10-A of the Rules which cast a duty and burden upon an elected Member and thereby drawing presumption against the Member for having not obtained the mandate is contrary to well settled principles of jurisprudence that it is the plaintiff who is required to prove the case. This Court has admitted a petition being Special Civil Application No. 39 of 2009 and granted interim relief in favour of certain directives. ( 10 ) MR. JANI has further submitted that the Chief Officer of Nagarpalika has granted permission to the petitioners to form a separate group and they had formed a group and neither leader of the party nor the Presiding Officer of the meeting have put them to notice that the petitioners cannot form such group. In fact, the permission to form a group is granted and, therefore, the petitioners have formed a separate group on the ground that they constituted more than one third of the total Members elected on BJP tickets. In fact, the permission to form a group is granted and, therefore, the petitioners have formed a separate group on the ground that they constituted more than one third of the total Members elected on BJP tickets. He has, therefore, submitted that no proceedings against the petitioners are maintainable under the Act and the same are required to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the question regarding one third of the Members having formed a separate group and other issues are required to be considered in the context of the Local Act i. e. State Legislation and not in the provisions contained in Schedule-X applicable to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly. ( 11 ) MR. JANI has further submitted that before the Designated Authority, an application to lead evidence was given. The same was not accepted and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from violation of principle of natural justice and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the petitioners had given application to cross-examine the respondent No. 1 as well as four other persons. Despite the fact that the petitioners insisted for examining those persons, the said application was not considered. It was neither rejected nor accepted and the petitioners were forced to conclude their arguments before the Designated Authority. He has further submitted that the petitioners have produced on record the documents to show that the District Unit President of Anand BJP had no authority to issue mandate. The mandate was, therefore, defective and not a mandate in the eye of law. The disciplinary authority of BJP had called the petitioners on 16. 6. 2008 and hence there is no question of taking any action against the petitioners. The order of the Designated Authority is also required to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the same does not deal with the detailed submissions presented by the petitioners. Even while disposing of the earlier petition this Court has directed the Designated Authority to deal with all these issues. Despite this fact the same were not dealt with and the order was passed against the petitioners. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 12 ) IN support of his submissions, Mr. Despite this fact the same were not dealt with and the order was passed against the petitioners. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 12 ) IN support of his submissions, Mr. Jani has relied on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Amrubhai Nagbhai Maitra Vs. Competent Authority (Special Civil Application No. 11015 of 2001 decided on 5. 9. 2003) wherein after discussing in detail about the statutory provisions, the Court held that it becomes crystal clear that if conditions laid down in Rule 6 (5) of the Rules are not satisfied, the petition is required to be dismissed as per the provisions contained in Rule 7 (2) of the Rules. Whether these Rules are mandatory or director, can be decided on the basis of fact as to whether they provide any consequence as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharif-Un-Din Vs. Abdul Gani Lone (Supra ). In the present case Rule 7 (2) prescribes the consequence of dismissal of petition and hence the case squarely falls within the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court further observed that Anti-Defection Law is framed to curb corruption, malpractices and malicious or fraudulent motives in toppling the existing bodies either at the level of local authorities, State or Central level and Court should heavily bounce upon such defectors, but at the same time, the Court has to also see that such laws should not be misused for certain oblique motives or personal gains. The Court on facts therefore held that there was no merit in the order disqualifying the petitioner. ( 13 ) MR. Jani further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv H. Patil etc. Vs. D. Teke and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3044 , wherein it is held that 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. 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. In the case before the Supreme Court the petitioner, appellant failed to show any resolution of the Party, 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 in appeal before Supreme Court. 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 S. 3 (1) (b ). May be that the party, Aghadi or front had resolved to sponsor a particular person's 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. ( 14 ) BASED on the aforesaid factual position as well as the decided case law on the subject Mr. Jani has strongly urged that the impugned order passed by the Designated Authority is without any authority in law as well as contrary to the statutory provisions and against the settled principles and hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 15 ) MR. Jani has strongly urged that the impugned order passed by the Designated Authority is without any authority in law as well as contrary to the statutory provisions and against the settled principles and hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 15 ) MR. VIJAY Patel, learned advocate appearing on caveat, for M/s. H. L. Patel Associates, for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand supported the order passed by the Designated Authority and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order and the same is required to be upheld by this Court. ( 16 ) BEFORE dealing with the various grounds raised by the petitioners in the present petition, Mr. Patel invited the Court's attention to Section 3 of the Gujarat Provision For Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities For Defection Act, 1986. Sec. 3:-Disqualification on ground of defection.-[1] Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, a councilor or a member belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a councilor or a member; [a] if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or [b] if he votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of a municipal corporation, Panchayat or as the case may be, 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 by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention. Explanation-[1] For the purpose of this section [a] a person elected as a councilor or, as the case may be, a member shall be deemed to belong to the political party, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as such councillor or member. Explanation-[1] For the purpose of this section [a] a person elected as a councilor or, as the case may be, a member shall be deemed to belong to the political party, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as such councillor or member. [b] An appointed councillor or member shall, [i] where he is a member of any political party on the date of his appointment as such councillor, or as the case may be, member be deemed to belong to such political party; [ii] In any other case, be deemed to belong to the political party of which he becomes, or, as the case may be, first becomes a member of such party before the expiry of six months from the date on which he is appointed as such councillor, or as the case may be, a member. [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 any political party shall be disqualified for being a councillor or, as the case may be, a member if he joins any political party after such election. [3] An appointed councillor or, as the case may be, member shall be disqualified for being a councillor or, as the case may be, a member if he joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which he is appointed as such councillor or member. [3] An appointed councillor or, as the case may be, member shall be disqualified for being a councillor or, as the case may be, a member if he joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which he is appointed as such councillor or 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 appointed as such councillor or member] shall [a] 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 councillor or, as the case may be, a member as a candidate set up by such political party; [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 for the purpose of sub-section [2] or, as the case may be, deemed to be an appointed councillor or, as the case may be, a member for the purpose of sub-section [3] section 3 deals with disqualification on ground of defection. A councillor or a Member belonging to any political party shall be disqualified on two grounds; (i) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party or (ii) if he votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of a municipal Corporation, panchayat or as the case may be, municipality contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs. He has submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have themselves given an application to the Chief Officer for forming of a separate group and for allotment of separate seats for them in the meeting of the Municipality. Since the petitioners are liable to be disqualified under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act there is no need to go into other aspects of the matter nor they are required to be decided by this Court. Whether any mandate was issued or whether petitioners have committed breach of such mandate is of no significance. Since the petitioners are liable to be disqualified under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act there is no need to go into other aspects of the matter nor they are required to be decided by this Court. Whether any mandate was issued or whether petitioners have committed breach of such mandate is of no significance. It is true that the Designated Authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have committed breach of the mandate issued by the leader of the political party. Still the order of the Designated Authority can be supported by contending that since the petitioners have themselves given up the party to which they originally belonged or the party on whose ticket they were elected, it would amount to voluntarily given up their membership of BJP and hence all other issues pale into insignificance. He has further submitted that when an order is sustainable on either of these two grounds which are envisaged under Section 3 of the Defection Act, the same cannot be disturbed simply because with regard to other ground, certain objections were raised in the petition keeping in mind the alleged non-compliance of the Rules. Even the exception carved out in Section 4 of the Act would not come to the rescue of the petitioners as in view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Rajendra Singh Rana and others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 270 , and the judgment of this Court in the case Pravinji Shakraji Thakore Vs. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No. 5505 of 2008 with Special Civil Application No. 5740 of 2008 decided on 15. 5. 2008 ). He has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Designated Authority disqualifying the petitioners as the Members of the Khambhat Nagarpalika does not call for any interference while exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. 2008 ). He has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Designated Authority disqualifying the petitioners as the Members of the Khambhat Nagarpalika does not call for any interference while exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 17 ) HAVING heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the relevant statutory provisions as well as the decided case law on the subject the Court is of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Designated Authority and the same deserves to be confirmed by this Court. ( 18 ) THE Designated Authority has referred to in para-5 of its order that the original opponent No. 3 i. e. Kantilal Devjibhai Thakore, who has not filed any petition wrote letter dated 18. 12. 2008 that he had received the mandate, however because of misunderstanding he cast his vote contrary to the mandate. Since he wanted to remain in BJP he tendered his apology and requested the party to continue him as a Member of Khambhat Nagarpalika. This fact itself shows that the mandate was issued to cast vote in particular manner and the said mandate was already received by the Members of BJP. The original opponents No. 1,2,4 and 12 have raised preliminary objections on 23. 12. 2008 and submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Defection Act, they are not liable to be disqualified as out of 23 Members belonging to BJP, 12 Members including Smt. Revaben S. Chauhan have formed a separate group and since they are more than one third in number the same is considered to be split and provision of Section 4 would come to their rescue and they cannot be disqualified. This question was considered by the Designated Authority and following the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5505 and 5740 of 2008 decided on 15. 5. This question was considered by the Designated Authority and following the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5505 and 5740 of 2008 decided on 15. 5. 2008 the Designated Authority has taken the view that if there is no split at the national or State level in the original political party in that case if there is any split at the local level it cannot be considered split within the meaning of Section 4 of the Defection Act. The Designated Authority has further observed that since the petitioners have cast their vote in favour of Jayrambhai Kanjibhai Chunara, who was contesting post of Vice President as per the mandate of the party, which shows that the mandate was received by them and despite the receipt of the mandate they have not cast their vote in favour of candidate of BJP namely, Zaverbhai Govindbhai Solanki and instead of that they have cast their vote in favour of Smt. Revaben S. Chauhan. Thus, neither the fact regarding receipt of the mandate nor breach thereof can be denied. ( 19 ) EVEN if there is any controversy with regard to the issuance of mandate and/or receipt of mandate, or mandate does not contain the specific direction that in case, there is any breach of such mandate, they would be disqualified, there is no dispute about the fact that they have formed a separate group and their application made to the Chief Officer for allotment of separate seat in the meeting of the Municipality clearly indicates that they have given up the party to which they originally belonged and hence provision of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act are clearly applicable in the present case. This very issue has come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Rana and others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 270 wherein it is held that it is not enough that a claim is made of a split in the original party, in addition to showing that one-third of the members of the Legislature Party have come out of the party, but it is necessary to prove it at least prima facie. Those who have left the party, will have, prima facie, to show by relevant materials that there has been a split in the original party. Those who have left the party, will have, prima facie, to show by relevant materials that there has been a split in the original party. The argument, therefore, that all that 37 MLAs were required to do was to make a claim before the Speaker that there had been a split in the original party and to show that one-third of the members of the legislature party had come out and that they need not produce any material in support of the split in the original political party, cannot be accepted. Thus, this decision makes it very clear that the split must be either at the national level or at the State level. Simply because the Members of the Councilor of the Municipality form a separate group it would not amount to split of the original political party and the benefit of Section 4 of the Defection Act is not available to the petitioners. ( 20 ) THIS Court after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Rana and others (Supra) has observed that all the four petitioners undisputedly were party in signing the notice of no confidence motion and it is dispatched to the authorised officer whereby no confidence motion was moved and ultimately the meeting was ordered to be convened on 11. 1. 2008. Therefore, the correspondence referred to hereinabove on the letter-head of the one of the petitioners, namely, Pravinji Shakraji Thakore and their stand before the Designated Authority, while filing reply to the application submitted, obviously goes against the present petitioners. Therefore, it is possible for the Court to dismiss the present petition observing that the finding of Designated Authority is absolutely legal considering the Scheme of Section 3 (1) (a) read with Section 6. Once having passed the order of disqualification under Section 3 (1) (a) read with Section 6 of the Act, the Court has also considered the disqualification on the other grounds i. e. on account of defiance of whip and it was held that there was sufficient evidence produced by the applicants before the Designated Authority in the form of documents as well as affidavit in support of the contents of the application. The Court further observed that on one hand the say of the petitioner before the Designated Authority was that as they were no more members of Indian National Congress (I) and had claimed to be separate Panchayat Party forming group of 5 members, there was no reason for the Congress party to issue mandate to them. This by itself, would estop them from taking fresh factual plea before this Court that Gandhinagar District Congress Committee President was not authorized to issue mandate and on that count, they had refused to accept the mandate. National level party, obviously is authorised to decide the modus as to how the party would operate up to the the grass-root level. There is no need to have straight-jacket formula for the purpose. Such expectation would neither be legal nor proper, more particularly in democratic format of the Constitution of India as well as each of the political party of the Country. Ultimately, it is the policy of the party and when it is not the say of the petitioners that the State level unit of the party, at relevant point of time was of the different view than decision taken by the District President of Gandhinagar District Congress Committee. On the contrary, on facts, the Designated Officer has reached to the conclusion that there was no split in the party at any level including district level and that too, in a national level party. Therefore, the petitioners could have been held disqualified also as per the scheme of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3. ( 21 ) BASED on the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, it is forgone conclusion that the petitioners have incurred disqualification under Section 3 (1) (a) as well as under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Defection Act. The Designated Authority has also declared the petitioners disqualified both under Section 3 (1) (a) as well as Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act. Since the order passed by the Designated Authority is in confirmity with the provisions of the Act as well as law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court no interference is called for. Accordingly, the order passed by the Designated Authority is hereby confirmed and the present petition challenging the said order is dismissed at the threshold.