JUDGMENT K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—These appeals are directed against common order dated 19-8-2011 made in Writ Petition Nos. 41921 and 41922 of 2010 dismissing and refusing to quash the order dated 9-12-2010 bearing No. GUDC-1/ELECTION/CR.16/10-11 (at Annexure-E) on the file of respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur District, Bijapur. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellants are (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') as arrayed in the writ petitions. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ appeals may be stated as under: The appellants/petitioners filed petitions in W.P. Nos. 41921 and 41922 of 2010 against the respondents assailing the correctness of the order dated 9-12-2010 passed on the file of respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur. They have pleaded that they were elected Councillors of Sindagi Town Municipal Council of JD(S) party. Respondent 3 filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner on 28-8-2010 for disqualifying the petitioners from their membership on the ground of violating 'the whip' given by him for election to the post of President and Vice-President on 20-8-2010. Respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner held an enquiry on the complaint. The petitioners have contended that respondent 3-District President had no authority to issue Whip and no Whip was issued. Learned Single Judge held that the subject-matter involved in the writ petition was directly covered by order dated 27-5-2011 made in W.P. Nos. 80220 and 80221 of 2011 (Smt. Bhimabai and Another v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur District and Others) and for the reasons stated therein the writ petitions were dismissed by order dated 19-8-2011 as devoid of merits. This is impugned in these appeals. 3. Sri. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits: (i) that order dated 27-5-2011 made in W.P. Nos. 80220 and 80221 of 2011 (Smt. Bhimabai's case) confirmed in W.A. Nos. This is impugned in these appeals. 3. Sri. Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits: (i) that order dated 27-5-2011 made in W.P. Nos. 80220 and 80221 of 2011 (Smt. Bhimabai's case) confirmed in W.A. Nos. 10115 to 10131 of 2001 (is not applicable to the case of the appellants; (ii) that the appellants challenged their disqualification order dated 9-12-2010 from the membership of Town Municipal Council, Sindagi, on the ground that District President of Janata Dal-S Party (in short, 'JD(S) Party'), Bijapur District, had no authority to issue the Whip; (iii) that the Whip suffers from ambiguity; (iv) that the impugned order of disqualification was passed on a complaint filed by the District President of JD(S) Party, Bijapur District, directly to the Deputy Commissioner, instead of Chief Executive Officer of the concerned local authority and it is contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defection Act') and as such the order of disqualification is bad in law; (v) that the case of Smt. Beemabai, supra, is not applicable as it pertains to disqualification of member of TMC belonging to Congress (I) party and its constitution differs from Constitution of JD(S) Party. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relies on the decision in Tukkanasa v. Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and Another 1992 (4) Kar. L.J. 441 on the point complaint of disqualification made against the President of Municipal Council on the ground of defection made directly to the Deputy Commissioner without making a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner dismembering the petitioner from the Council, is bad in law. 5. Sri. H.S. Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 3-District President of JD(S) party submits: (i) that the case of the appellants is covered on all the fours of Bheemabai's case; (ii) that under sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, any person aggrieved by a decision of the Deputy Commissioner made under sub-section (2) of Section 16, may, within a period of thirty days from the date of such decision, appeal to the Government. But, the appellants have not filed appeal to the Government as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and therefore the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner does not call for judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; (iii) that respondent 3 being Bijapur District President of JD(S) Party, was competent to issue Whip and also to file a complaint under Section 4 of the Defection Act; (iv) that respondent 3 filed the complaint before the Deputy Commissioner as well as before the Chief Executive Officer and there is no violation of any provision in lodging complaint and the order passed thereon by the Deputy Commissioner disqualifying the appellants from the membership of Town Municipal Council, Sindagi on the ground of defection is in accordance with Defection Law; and (v) that as per the decision in Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2007 SC 590 , disqualification of MLA for defection by the Speaker is open in judicial review only on limited grounds viz., ultra vires or mala fides or having been made in colourable exercise of power based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations and violation of natural justice, but in the instant case nor those grounds are urged (vide para 11). 6. In reply, Sri. Mahale, learned Senior Counsel, submits that subsection (3) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, is not applicable as it pertains to general disqualification and not the decision on the question of disqualification under the Defection Act. He further submits that since the learned Single Judge has not examined the authority of respondent 3 to give the Whip, validity of whip and legality of the complaint, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back for disposal, in accordance with law. 7. In view of the arguments addressed by the Senior Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the impugned order calls for our interference? Our answer to the above is in the negative for the following reasons.- 8. Submission of Sri. Mahale that sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 is not applicable as it pertains to general disqualification and not the decision on the question of disqualification under the Defection Act, is correct and there is no other alternate remedy to the petitioners except to approach this Court. Submission of Sri. Mahale that sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 is not applicable as it pertains to general disqualification and not the decision on the question of disqualification under the Defection Act, is correct and there is no other alternate remedy to the petitioners except to approach this Court. 9. In Bhimabai's case, a member belonging to Congress party voted in favour of BJP candidate, in violation of whip issued by the District Congress Committee of Bijapur. Therefore, a complaint came to be filed before the Tahsildar/the Election Officer and it was forwarded to the DC, who after holding an enquiry, disqualified him from the membership of TMC. The order of disqualification was challenged in W.P. Nos. 80220 and 80221 of 2011 on the following grounds: (a) that the complainant did not produce document to show that he was the District President of the Congress Party; (b) that complainant had no authority to file complaint; (c) that they did not receive the alleged whip; (d) that they were not given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence; (e) that the complaint filed before Tahsildar was not forward it to DC; and (f) that the order of disqualification made by DC upon the complaint directly filed before him was bad in law. 10. Learned Single Judge rejected all the above contentions and dismissed the petitions. Feeling aggrieved by the order, they filed an appeal. Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 10-8-2011, rejected the appeals in W.A. Nos. 10115 and 10131 of 2011 observing that the District Congress Committee President had authority to issue the whip as per the Constitution of the Congress Party. It is useful to excerpt paragraph 10 of the order, which reads as under: 10. It is significant to note that during the course of the submission the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent, has produced the copy of the State President issuing authorisation to all the Block Development President of the Congress party of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, Congress Bhavan, No. 14, Prince Road, Bangalore 52, dated 16-8-2010 bearing No. KPS 39 of 2010. It is specifically stated that all the elected members through Congress party should cast their vote in favour of the party nominee in the election to be conducted for the President of Town Municipality and accordingly the State Congress Committee has authorised the Block Development Congress Committee and the Presidents of the respective Districts. Accordingly, the District Congress Committee President has issued whip dated 20-8-2010 requesting all the elected members of Congress party to cast their vote to the nominee of the party who contests the election for the post of President and Vice-President. Both these references are specifically made in the order passed by the first respondent at ink page 64 as referred above. This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered and appreciated by the learned Single Judge at paras 7, 8 and 9, ink page 14 of his order. The Deputy Commissioner, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has passed the order, assigning valid reasons, and the same has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as referred above. Hence, we do not find any good ground as such made out by the appellants to interfere in the order impugned. Therefore, we decline to consider the relief sought for by the appellants herein in the instant appeals. 11. It is contended by Sri. Padmanabha Mahale that case of Smt. Bhimabai was pertaining to a candidate of Congress party and the case of the petitioner is pertaining to JD(S) Party and constitution of both parties differ and therefore learned Single Judge, should have examined the case of the petitioners with reference to the grounds urged by them, but he has not done so. So as to save public time, we proceed to examine the issue and dispose of the case on merits. 12. The case originates on account of defection under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (in short, 'the Defection Act'). Hence, it is useful to excerpt Section 3 of the Defection Act, which reads as under: 3. So as to save public time, we proceed to examine the issue and dispose of the case on merits. 12. The case originates on account of defection under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (in short, 'the Defection Act'). Hence, it is useful to excerpt Section 3 of the Defection Act, which reads as under: 3. Disqualification on the ground of defection.--(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 3A, 3B and 4, a Councillor or a member, belonging to any political party, shall be disqualified for being such Councillor or member.- (a) If he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or (b) If he votes or abstains from voting in, or intentionally remains absent from any meeting of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat, contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf without obtaining the prior permission of such party, person or authority and such voting, abstention or absence has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of voting or such abstention or absence. (emphasis supplied) Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section.- (a) a person elected as a Councillor, 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) a person elected as a Councillor or as the case may be, a member, otherwise than as a candidate set up by a political party shall be deemed to belong to the political party of which he becomes a member before the expiry of six months from the date of commencement of his term of office, or in the case of a Councillor or Member whose term of office has commenced on or before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) (Amendment) Act, 1995, within six months from such date. (2) An elected Councillor, or as the case may be, a member, who has been elected as such, otherwise than as a candidate set up by a political party shall be disqualified for being a Councillor or, as the case may be a member if he joins a political party after expiry of six months from the date of commencement of his term of office, or in the case of a Councillor or Member whose term of office has commenced on or before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) (Amendment) Act, 1995, after expiry of six months from such date. (3) x x x (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, a person who on the commencement of this Act, is a Councillor shall.- (a) where he was a member of a political party immediately before such commencement, he deemed for purposes of sub-section (1) to have been elected as a Councillor as a candidate set up by such political party; (b) in any other case, be deemed to be an elected Councillor who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political party for the purpose of sub-section (2). 13. Thus, according to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Defection Act, subject to the provisions, a Councillor or a member, belonging to any political party, shall be disqualified from membership if a Councillor or a member votes or abstains from voting contrary to any direction issued by a political party to which he belongs to or intentionally remains absent from any meeting of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat, contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf without obtaining the prior permission of such party, person or authority and such voting, abstention or absence has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of voting or such abstention or absence, Councillor or member. 14. 14. In the instant case, Bijapur District President of Janata Dal(S) claims that as per the State level party resolution made 15-6-2008 (vide Annexure-R1) he was authorised to issue whip and accordingly he issued the whip on 13-8-2010 (vide Annexures-B and B1) to the appellants to vote in favour of the party candidate in the election to be held on 20-8-2010 for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of TMC, but appellants have voted against the party candidate for the post of Adhyaksha. Hence, respondent 3, as the District President of JD(S) party, lodged a complaint (as per Annexure-A) against the appellants for their disqualification from membership of TMC. The Deputy Commissioner after following the procedure and holding an enquiry accepted the complaint and disqualified the appellants from their membership of TMC. It is submitted that copy of the resolution filed by the respondent 3 is not for the purpose of issuing whip. It is not the case of the appellants that there was any other person, who was authorised to issue the whip. 15. It is useful to excerpt Section 4 of Defection Act, which reads as under: 4. It is submitted that copy of the resolution filed by the respondent 3 is not for the purpose of issuing whip. It is not the case of the appellants that there was any other person, who was authorised to issue the whip. 15. It is useful to excerpt Section 4 of Defection Act, which reads as under: 4. Decision on the question as to disqualification on the ground of defection.--(1) A complaint that a member or a Councillor has become subject to the disqualification under Section 3 may be made by a member, Councillor or a political party to the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned local authority.- (a) in a case falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1), after the member or the Councillor gives up the membership of the political party; (b) in a case falling under clause (b) of sub-section (1), after the expiry of fifteen days specified therein; (c) in a case falling under sub-section (2), after he joins the political party; and (d) x x x x (2) Where a complaint under sub-section (1) is received by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned local authority, he shall, within twenty-four hours from the receipt of such complaint, refer the same for decision to.- (i) in the case of Zilla Panchayat to the State Election Commissioner; (ii) in the case of Municipal Corporation, to the Divisional Commissioner; (iii) in the case of a City or Town Municipal Council or Town Panchayat, to the Deputy Commissioner; (iv) in the case of a Taluk Panchayat, to the State Election Commissioner; we shall decide the question within thirty days after the receipt by him of the reference and his decision shall be final. X X X X Explanation.--In this section.- (1) "Chief Executive Officer" means.- (a) in the case of a Zilla Panchayat, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat; (b) in the case of a Taluk Panchayat, the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat; (c) in the case of a Municipal Corporation, the Commissioner; (d) in the case of a City Municipal Council, the Chief Officer; (e) in the case of a Town Panchayat, the Chief Officer. (2) "Local Authority" means the Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Municipal Corporation, City or Town Municipal Council or Town Panchayat. (3) "State Election Commissioner" means the State Election Commissioner appointed under Section 308 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. 16. (2) "Local Authority" means the Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Municipal Corporation, City or Town Municipal Council or Town Panchayat. (3) "State Election Commissioner" means the State Election Commissioner appointed under Section 308 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. 16. Thus, Section 4 of the Defection Act says that a member or a Councillor who has become subject to the disqualification under Section 3, a complaint may be made by a member, Councillor or a political party to the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned local authority, after the expiry of fifteen days with regard to committing violation under Section 3 of the Defection Act. According to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Defection Act, where a complaint under sub-section (1) is received by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned local authority, he shall, within twenty-four hours from the receipt of such complaint, refer the same to the Deputy Commissioner for decision in the case of city or Town Panchayat and the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the question within thirty days after the receipt by him and his decision shall be final. 17. From the above, it is crystal clear that a complaint can be made against a member who has become subject to the disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) of Act by a member, Councillor or a political party to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the concerned local authority, after the expiry of fifteen days specified therein. In the instant case, complaint of defection was lodged by the District President of JD(S) Party himself directly to the Deputy Commissioner. It is also brought on record that complaint was also submitted to the Chief Executive Officer. But, it is denied and stated that General Receipt Register of CEO (Annexure-G) for the relevant period does not bear an entry regarding receipt of the complaint by the CEO. There is no dispute that election for the post of President and Vice-President of Town Municipal Council, Sindagi, was fixed on 20-8-2010. District President of Janata Dal(S) party lodged his complaint on 28-8-2010 with the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur (Vide Annexure-A). Therefore, it is contended that the complaint was lodged within fifteen days from the date of alleged defection and therefore it is bad in law. Section 4 provides that a member or a political party can lodged a complaint. District President of Janata Dal(S) party lodged his complaint on 28-8-2010 with the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur (Vide Annexure-A). Therefore, it is contended that the complaint was lodged within fifteen days from the date of alleged defection and therefore it is bad in law. Section 4 provides that a member or a political party can lodged a complaint. If a member of TMC had lodged the complaint, it can be urged that the District President may take a decision to condone the act. But, in the instant case, the President of the District President of Janata Dal(S) himself has lodged the complaint and therefore the possibility of condoning violation of whip was ruled out. It is not the case of the appellants that their act of voting against their party candidate was condoned within 15 days of violation of whip. Therefore, contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that complaint lodged before the expiry of fifteen days from the date of alleged defection is bad in law, falls to the ground. 18. Another contention raised by the appellants is that according to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Defection Act, the complaint should have been lodged with Chief Executive Officer of the concerned local authority, but the complaint was lodged with the Deputy Commissioner himself. In the decision in Tukkanasa's case, it was held that order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the complaint directly made to him is not sustainable in law. Defection law prohibits defection by the Councillors of Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, Town Panchayats and Members of Zilla Panchayats and Taluk Panchayats. In view of employing the word 'may' in Section 4 of the Defection Act, even if a complaint of defection is made directly to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, it cannot be said that the complaint is bad in law. In our view, serious act of violation which is prohibited by law by the party candidates shall not be allowed to absolve on technical grounds or procedural irregularity. It is pertinent to mention that the Deputy Commissioner is competent to decide on the complaint made to him directly as to disqualification on the ground of defection, by calling for necessary report from the concerned CEO. It is pertinent to mention that the Deputy Commissioner is competent to decide on the complaint made to him directly as to disqualification on the ground of defection, by calling for necessary report from the concerned CEO. It is also necessary to observe that CEO, on receipt of complaint under sub-section (1) of Section 4 forwards the same to the Deputy Commissioner for his decision and nothing more. Thus, the act of CEO is only ministerial and nothing beyond it. In our view, law laid down in Gukkanassa's case, is not correct. In the instant case, respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner has followed the principles of natural justice and rightly reached the conclusion that appellants have voted against the Whip given by the District President of JD(S) Party, who had the right to issue whip and the disqualification is valid in law. Though learned Single Judge has not stated in so many words while applying the decision dated 10-8-2010 made in Bhimabai's case, it is implicit that the Whip issued by the District President of Janata Dal(S) and that Whip was valid and therefore there as no merit in the writ petitions. All the grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants are not sustainable in law and they are of no avail to the appellants. There is no merit in the appeals. In the result, appeals fail and they are hereby rejected.