JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J: These appeals are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.Nos. 7698-7701/2010 being aggrieved by the order dated 11-3-2010 wherein the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District wherein in the enquiry for disqualification under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1967 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). I.A.III filed by the complainants to withdraw the complaint has been rejected and the Deputy Commissioner has ordered issue of summons to the witnesses. 2. The appellants herein filed writ petitions being aggrieved by the order rejecting I.A.III which was filed by the complainants for withdrawal of the complaint wherein they had alleged that writ petitioners were disqualified under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act. When the matter was pending before the Deputy Commissioner the competent authority under the Act, an application was flied seeking withdrawal of the complaint and to drop the proceedings which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by detailed order dated 19-2-2010 by holding that once the complaint has been filed alleging defection under Section 4(2) of the Act, the question of withdrawing the complaint and dropping the proceedings on the application filed by the applicants does not arise and it is for him to decide as to whether the persons against whom the complaint has been given have infact incurred defection or not. In the writ petitions, the appellants herein contended that the matter before the Deputy Commissioner regarding defection under the Act is not quasi criminal and the complainants can withdraw the complaint and seek dropping of the proceedings. 3. The learned Single Judge negatived the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and held that since the matter is now posted for evidence, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the final order, it is open for them to question the order impugned along with the final order and reserving such liberty, writ petitions were rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11-3-2010, these appeals are filed by the petitioners. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11-3-2010, these appeals are filed by the petitioners. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there are two decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court wherein there is divergent view as to whether the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner regarding disqualification under the Act is civil or quasi criminal proceedings and further when the complainant is not interested in pursuing the application, it is not open to the Deputy Commissioner to evade the complainant from withdrawing the complaint. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have permitted the complainant to withdraw the complaint and to drop the proceedings of disqualification against the appellants. 6. The learned Government Advocate who was directed to take notice for respondent No.1 argued in support of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. 8. The material on record would show that the complaint has been filed before the Deputy Commissioner alleging that appellants herein have incurred disqualification under the Act and the proceedings have been initiated by the competent authority - the Deputy Commissioner. It is not disputed that once the complaint has been lodged alleging that the appellants have incurred disqualification under the Act, the complainants cannot be permitted to withdraw the complaint and seek dropping of further proceedings as it is for the competent authority under the Act, once it is brought to his knowledge about detection, to find out as to whether the appellants have incurred defection under the Act and it is unnecessary to consider the question at this stage as to whether the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner is quasi criminal or civil in nature, as in any view of the matter, having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the power conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner to find out as to whether the appellants have incurred disqualification under the Act, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application filed by the complainants to withdraw the complaint and to drop the proceedings is justified and does not call for Interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has given liberty to the appellants to urge the said contention also if the final order goes against them and they have to challenge the said final order. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any error or infirmity as to call for interference in this intra Court appeal. Accordingly, Writ Appeals are dismissed. Writ Appeals were dismissed.