Judgment :- 1. Though the matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory application by consent of parties the appeal is heard and disposal of on merits. 2. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7739/2008 dated 27.11.2008. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: According to the appellant he is a Block President of Janata Dal (S) of Dandeli Block. Election for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha was scheduled to be held on 29.02.2008. Based on the authorisation given to him by the State President of JD(S); he had issued a whip to respondent no. 2 and 3. Respondent no. 2 and 3 taking help from the other parties got themselves elected as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Dandeli Municipal Council. Therefore the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner to disqualify respondent no. 2 and 3 u/S 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987. Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the parties. Deputy Commissioner after hearing the matter passed an order holding that respondent no. 2 and 3 have violated the whip and their action was contrary to the Act. Accordingly the Deputy Commissioner disqualified respondent no.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 Being aggrieved by the same a Writ Petition was filed by respondent no. 2 and 3 to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 27.05.2008. 3. Learned Single Judge after examining the entire case on record and considering the evidence let in by the parties came to conclusion that complaint lodged by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar was not on behalf of the political party-JD(S) and that the same was in his individual capacity and further held that the complaint lodged by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable. Accordingly learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Advocate for respondents. 5. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellant contends that the learned single Judge has committed an error in not considering the entire pith and substance of the complaint lodged by him before the Deputy Commissioner. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Advocate for respondents. 5. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellant contends that the learned single Judge has committed an error in not considering the entire pith and substance of the complaint lodged by him before the Deputy Commissioner. According to him if the learned Single Judge had considered entire pith and substance of the complaint lodged by the complaint, would not taken a view that the complaint was not lodged by the political party but it was filed in the individual capacity of the appellant. Therefore he requested the Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restore the passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. Per contra, Government Advocate contends that the appellant herein had lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner as a President of Dandeli Block JD(S) but it has been filed in his individual capacity. Therefore the complaint lodged by the appellant was not maintainable. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the Writ Petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is: Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, U.K, Karwar? 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the President of JD(S) Dandeli Block. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has initiated proceedings against respondent no.2 and 3 to disqualify them by filing a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar. It would be relevant for us to extract the cause title of the complaint lodged u/S 4 of the Act which reads as hereunder: Sri T.R. Chandrashekar, S/o late Raghavan Nair, Aged about 66 years, R/o Kittur Channamma Circle, Dandeli, Haliyal Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. The petition is also verified by him. Verification is also signed in his individual name. Along with the complaint by engaging an Advocate he had filed the vakalath. Vakalath is also signed by him as T.R. Chandrashekar and not as the President of the JD(S) Dandeli Block. He has been cross examined before the Deputy Commissioner by respondent no. 2 and 3. Learned single Judge in the last portion of paragraph no. Along with the complaint by engaging an Advocate he had filed the vakalath. Vakalath is also signed by him as T.R. Chandrashekar and not as the President of the JD(S) Dandeli Block. He has been cross examined before the Deputy Commissioner by respondent no. 2 and 3. Learned single Judge in the last portion of paragraph no. 11 of the order has extracted the admissions made by the appellant which reads as hereunder: “I have read my complaint given to the Court of Deputy Commissioner and it is a fact that is filed in my own name and verified in my individual name. Even vakalathname I have appointed advocate in my own name. It is a fact that in concerned letter I am only given authority to issue whip”. 9. It is not in dispute that the proceedings under Section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 can be initiated to disqualify persons for disobeying the whip issued by a political party. But such a petitions can be filed either by a Councilor or an elected councilor or by a political party. It is not in dispute that the appellant is neither a member of the council nor a councilor elected to Dandeli City Municipality. Therefore what is required to be considered by us in this appeal is whether the appellant had filed the petition as President as JD(S) or in his individual capacity. If the political party had lodged a complaint we cannot appreciate the order passed by the learned Single Judge. On the other hand if the complaint is lodged by the appellant in his individual capacity Court cannot hold such a complaint can be treated as a complaint lodged by a political party. In such an event we have to hold that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge in granting relief to respondent No.2 and 3. 10. If a petition has to be filed in the name of political party concerning the election the cause little of the petition should have described that the petition is filed by a political party represented by an authorised person. A political party can be represented either by the President or Secretary of the same. 10. If a petition has to be filed in the name of political party concerning the election the cause little of the petition should have described that the petition is filed by a political party represented by an authorised person. A political party can be represented either by the President or Secretary of the same. If the political party has filed the complaint even in the vakalath the authorised person on behalf of the political party has to sign for and on behalf of the political party either as a President or Secretary. 11. In election law verification of the petition is very important and if the same is filed on behalf of the party at least in the verification he should have mentioned that so-and-so as President is verifying the contents of the petition. In the present case all the three important factors are missing. It may be that the appellant is the President of JD(S) of Dandeli Block. But if he has filed the petition in his individual capacity as admitted by him in his cross examination the same can not be regarded as a petition filed by a political party. Therefore we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in granting relief to respondent no.2 and 3 by holding that the petition filed by the appellant as not a petition filed on behalf of the political party. In the circumstances we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.