ORDER 1. The petitioner, an elected member of Talala Taluka Panchayat has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal No.59 of 2011 in exercise of power under the provision of Gujarat Provision For Disqualification of Members Of Local Authorities For Defection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Local Authorities Defection Act', for the sake of brevity). 2. Facts in short, as narrated by the petitioner in the memo of petition, deserve to be set out as under; 3. The petitioner happens to be an elected member of Talala Taluka Panchayat under the symbol of Bhartiya Janta Party. The total number of elected members of Talala Taluka Panchayat is 17. Out of which, 9 members belonged to Bhartiya Rashtriya Janta Party and 8 members belonged to Bhartiya Janta Party. The respondent no.2 also is a Taluka Panchayat member elected on the symbol of Bhartiya Janta Party. 3.1 The District President of Junagadh District Unit of Bhartiya Janta Party on 20.12.2010 party issued direction that the respondent no.2 was to be elected and therefore members were to vote in his favour in election for the post of Chairman of 'Talala Samajic Nyay Samiti'. The meeting of the even date for electing Chairman of 'Talala Samajic Nyay Samiti' was held for electing Chairman from amongst members of the Samajic Nyay Samiti. The Samajic Nyay Samiti is consisting of 5 members included the present petitioner as well as respondent no.2 in whose favour the direction was issued on the very samedate i.e. 20.12.2010. In that meeting one Shri Ramsinh Valabhai Parmar, i.e. nominated member, proposed name of present petitioner for the post of Chairman which was supported and seconded by another member of the Committee Shri Bhanubhai Bhikhabhai Chudasma, another nominated member and there was no other candidate in the fray and as the petitioner consented to be a candidate and as there was no other candidate he was declared elected, which was protested by the respondent no.2. 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this, respondent no.2 moved the concerned authority under the provision of the Local Authorities Defection Act which was treated as an Appeal No. 59 of 2011, and the authority passed order on 19.10.2011, allowing the same and declaring that the present petitioner has incurred disqualification to be continued as member of Talala Taluka Panchayat. 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this, respondent no.2 moved the concerned authority under the provision of the Local Authorities Defection Act which was treated as an Appeal No. 59 of 2011, and the authority passed order on 19.10.2011, allowing the same and declaring that the present petitioner has incurred disqualification to be continued as member of Talala Taluka Panchayat. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present petition is filed on the ground mentioned there under. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the order impugned is unsustainable in law, as the provision of the Local Authorities Defection Act is not appreciated by the concerned authority and the defection is declared, though there was no meeting of Taluka Panchayat as such and therefore, this provision was not attracted. 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the said meeting in which alleged defection is said to have occurred was a meeting of Samajic Nyay Samiti, which is different than the Taluka Panchayat itself. The said meeting did not involve any voting as such and when there was no voting, there was no question of voting against the party's whip or abstaining against the party's whip and hence provisions of the Local Authorities Defection Act were not attracted. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside, as the provisions of Local Authorities Defection Act was not attracted to this proceeding at all. 7. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 contended that the plain reading of Section 3 and Section 6 of the Local Authorities Defection Act would clearly show that the real intention of legislature was to see to it that the whip issued by the party President or the authorised person in a district is carried out by all its members, who have been elected on the symbol of the party. The defense by the petitioner is absolutely untenable as could be seen from the language of the whip produced at page no.42. In the whip, issued by the competent office bearer party at page no.42, clearly mandated to all the concerned that in the election procedure for electing Chairman of Samajic Nyay Samiti, the respondent no.2 was to be elected and in his favour the vote was to be cast. In the whip, issued by the competent office bearer party at page no.42, clearly mandated to all the concerned that in the election procedure for electing Chairman of Samajic Nyay Samiti, the respondent no.2 was to be elected and in his favour the vote was to be cast. When such an unequivocal mandate was issued there was no scope for any other interpretation thereof and the petitioner's consent to become a Chairman of Samajic Nyay Samiti was contrary to the whip issued and thus that amounted to clear violation of the whip which attracted the provision of the Local Authorities Defection Act. 8. Learned AGP for respondent no.1 further contended that respondent no.2 has in fact lodged the rein protest against the proceeding of Samajic Nyay Samiti while electing the Chairman and in light of that protest it was not open to the present petitioner to contend that there exists no defection. 9. Learned AGP has further submitted that when petitioner has consented to act and to accept the Chairmanship than those act in itself amounts to a defiance of the whip issued by the party and this defiance of petitioner is not condoned within 15 days by the party concerned. 10. Though served, none present for respondent no.2. 11. This Court has heard learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for respondent no.1. The provision of Local Authorities Defection Act is required to be set out as under in order to examine the rival submissions of learned advocate for the parties. The provision of Section 2 contains various definitions but the word 'Direction’ is nowhere defined. Section 3 in its entirety is required to be reproduced which is very important for the purpose of the present controversy. “3. The provision of Section 2 contains various definitions but the word 'Direction’ is nowhere defined. Section 3 in its entirety is required to be reproduced which is very important for the purpose of the present controversy. “3. Disqualification on ground of defection.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, a councillor or a member belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a councillor 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 authorised 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 purposes of this 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) 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 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. (2) An elected councillor, or as the case may be, member who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up 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, as the case may be, a 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 purposes of sub-section(3).” 12. The aforesaid provision of Section 3 on its plain and simple reading nowhere suggests that the elected member is restrained from voting as per his conscience in the meetings of sub-committees of Panchayat or Municipalities. The main object and reason for promulgating the statutes like the Local Authorities Defection Act is obviously to prevent unscrupulous party-members, having used party’s support, symbol and popularity in getting themselves elected as such, from indulging into horse-trading and destabilizing governing party for extraneous reasons, which may have far reaching effect upon the process of governing. Therefore in order to discourage and dissuade such unscrupulous elements from indulging in such dubious and undemocratic practices, dealing very serious blow to the very fabric of democratic governance, the statutory provisions like Local Authorities Defection Act have been enacted. 13. Therefore in order to discourage and dissuade such unscrupulous elements from indulging in such dubious and undemocratic practices, dealing very serious blow to the very fabric of democratic governance, the statutory provisions like Local Authorities Defection Act have been enacted. 13. The Local Authorities Defection Act, thus provide for restricting and preventing any unscrupulous elected members’ undemocratic attempts and action aimed at destabilizing the process of governance. It provides for drastic effect upon the elected members accused of defecting, hence the provisions are required to be construed strictly. A question arises as to whether the provisions of Local Authorities Defection Act envisage and enable political parties to issue ‘direction’ on every subject and for every meetings of the body, be it Panchayat or Municipality, wherein decisions are to be taken by majority voting? The answer is emphatic “NO”. As, if it is held to be so, than elected individual member, will lose his basic natural and unfettered individual right to act as per the dictates of his conscience. This would render and reduced him to be merely a robot or puppet in hands of few leaders of political party whose integrity and intentions cannot be vouchsafed permanently. Therefore I am of the considered view that the provisions of the Local Authorities Defection Act does not empower the Political Parties to issue binding ‘directions’ to it’s members to vote in particular manner or in favour all the moves even if they are not meetings of Panchayat or Municipalities but only meetings of it’s subcommittee wherein the process of voting is not likely to affect power equations at all. 14. The provisions of Local Authorities Defection Act are thus required to be read as they are in the statute book without enlarging it’s scope in any manner. 15. 14. The provisions of Local Authorities Defection Act are thus required to be read as they are in the statute book without enlarging it’s scope in any manner. 15. The provisions of Local Authorities Defection Act read as they are do not provide for issuance of any directions to elected members of a political parties to act or vote in particular manner or in favour particular individual when they are voting in the meetings of sub-committee as or not voting in the general body meeting in other words the political parties are entitled to issue binding directions to its elected members only when they are participating in meetings of the panchayat and or municipalities but not when the elected members are participating in sub-committee thereof which did not have any adverse affect destabilizing the power equations at all. 16. Thus examining the present controversy in the light of the afore said, would show that the meeting of “Talala Samajic Nyay Samiti” cannot be said to be the meeting of Talala Taluka Panchayat. The voting in that meeting for electing Nayayik Samiti’s president cannot be equated with the meeting of Talala Taluka Panchayat or election of Laslala Taluka Panchayat’s President. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not under any obligation to obey the direction issued by the District President of Junagadh District Unit of Bhartiya Janta Party on 20.12.2010 for electing Respondent No. 2 as president of the Nayakik Samiti or for casting vote in his favour for electiong Respondent No,. 2 as President of Nayayik Samiti. The meeting of talala Taluka Nyayik Samiti cannot be said to be a meeting of Talala Taluka Panchayat. For disobedience of such directions the petitioner cannot be said to have incurred any disqualifications as provided in the Local Authorities Defection Act. 17. In the result this petition is required to be allowed, and the order dated 10.10.2011 is required to be quashed and set aside. Hence the order dated 19.10.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. Direct service is permitted.