ORDER : R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2015 passed by the State Election Commission, whereby the learned Commissioner has disqualified the petitioners under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act'), the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that one Mr. G.T. Babureddy, filed a complaint, namely complaint No. Ra.Chu.Aa.09/ADA/2014, under Section 4 of the Act before the learned Commissioner. In the complaint, he prayed that the petitioners should be disqualified from being members of the Chitradurga Zilla Panchayat from their respective constituencies. According to the complainant, the Chitradurga Zilla Panchayat consists of thirty-four members out of which one seat was vacant. In all, there were fifteen members elected from Congress Party, twelve members from Bharathiya Janata Party (for short, 'BJP') and six members elected from Janata Dal (S) (for short, 'JD(S)') party. Both the petitioners and the complainant belong to the Congress party. The election for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha was fixed for 18-7-2014. The Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (for short, 'the K.P.C.C) happens to be the face of Indian National Congress. The President of K.P.C.C. authorised the President of District Congress Committee (for short, 'the D.C.C.) one Mr. A. Sethuram, to issue a whip with regard to elections for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. The said whip was issued on 10-7-2014. 2. The President of D.C.C. convened a meeting on 12-7-2014 and decided to field the complainant-Mr. G.T. Babureddy and Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh as the official candidates for the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, respectively. Accordingly, the whip was issued by the President, D.C.C. directing the Congress members, including the petitioners, to vote in favour of the official candidates of the Congress party on 18-7-2014. The whip, so issued, had clearly mentioned that "in case any party members were to violate the whip, then action would be taken under the Act". But notwithstanding the issuance of whip, the petitioners voted in favour of Mr. Giri M. Janaka, who is neither a member of the Congress party, nor the official candidate of the Congress party. Therefore, the petitioners should be declared as disqualified under the Act. 3. The petitioners filed their statement of objections to the said complaint. But notwithstanding the issuance of whip, the petitioners voted in favour of Mr. Giri M. Janaka, who is neither a member of the Congress party, nor the official candidate of the Congress party. Therefore, the petitioners should be declared as disqualified under the Act. 3. The petitioners filed their statement of objections to the said complaint. According to the petitioners, there was no delegation of power from the President of K.P.C.C. to the President of D.C.C. Thus, no whip was ever issued by the President of D.C.C. Since no whip was ever issued, the question of violating the whip does not even arise. 4. The learned Commissioner framed three issues on the basis of the pleadings: "The first issue was whether the whip issued by the D.C.C. President in pursuance of the authorisation given by the K.P.C.C. General Secretary was in order or not? The learned Commissioner answered the said issue in the affirmative." 5. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 11-8-2015, the learned Commissioner disqualified the petitioners. Hence, the present petitions before this Court. 6. Mr. Prakash T. Hebbar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the requirement of law is that proper delegation of power has to be made from the President of K.P.C.C. to the President of D.C.C. However, in the present case, there is not an iota of evidence to show that there is delegation of power from the President of K.P.C.C. to the President of D.C.C. The only document which has been produced before the learned Commissioner was a whip issued by the General Secretary, by letter dated 10-7-2014, which merely state that "in terms of the order of the President of K.P.C.C, Mr. M.A. Sethuram, the President of D.C.C. is authorised to issue whip to the elected members from the Congress party to vote in favour of the Congress party candidates". Such an authorisation issued by the General Secretary to the President of D.C.C. could not form the basis for issuance of the whip by the President of D.C.C. For, the order issued by the President is conspicuously missing in the present case. Such an authorisation issued by the General Secretary to the President of D.C.C. could not form the basis for issuance of the whip by the President of D.C.C. For, the order issued by the President is conspicuously missing in the present case. Relying on the case of Sadashiv H. Patil v Vithal D. Teke and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3044 : (2000)8 SCC 82 , the learned Counsel has pleaded that the consequences befall not only on a member as an individual, but also on the constituency represented by the member, which would cease to be represented on account of the member having been declared as 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. Since the requirement of law has not been complied with, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Nanjunda Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has relied upon the resolution adopted unanimously by the Executive Committee on 10-1-2004, whereby the Committee had authorised the President of K.P.C.C. to delegate the power to issue a whip to the President of D.C.C. According to the learned Counsel, such a resolution is sufficient for the President of K.P.C.C. to authorise the President of D.C.C. for issuance of whip. Secondly, according to the learned Counsel, the letter dated 10-7-2014, passed by the General Secretary, clearly authorised the President of D.C.C. to issue a whip. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has supported the impugned order. 8. Section 3 of the Act is as under: "3. Disqualification on the ground of defection.--(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 3-A, 3-B and 4, a Councillor or a member, belonging to any political party, shall be disqualified for being such Councillor or member. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has supported the impugned order. 8. Section 3 of the Act is as under: "3. Disqualification on the ground of defection.--(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 3-A, 3-B 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." 9. According to Section 3(1)(b), if a person votes contrary to a direction issued by the political party to which he belongs 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, the Councillor or the member can be disqualified. 10. Although the letter dated 10-7-2014 issued by the General Secretary was produced before the learned Commissioner, but even the said letter does not contain the authorisation issued by the President of K.P.C.C. to the President of D.C.C. The letter clearly mentions the fact that "in terms of the order of the President of K.P.C.C, Dr. G. Parameshwar, Mr. M.V. Sethuram, the President of Chitradurga, D.C.C. is authorised to issue whip". However, what was the order issued by the President of K.P.C.C. is a mystery, as the said order issued by the President of K.P.C.C. was never produced before the learned Commissioner. 11. A bare perusal of the order clearly reveals that the first issue framed by the learned Commissioner is with regard to whether the whip was issued by the D.C.C. President in pursuance of the authorisation issued by the K.P.C.C. General Secretary was in order? 11. A bare perusal of the order clearly reveals that the first issue framed by the learned Commissioner is with regard to whether the whip was issued by the D.C.C. President in pursuance of the authorisation issued by the K.P.C.C. General Secretary was in order? However, the learned Commissioner should have first enquired about the authorisation issued by the President, K.P.C.C. in favour of the President, D.C.C. In the absence of authorisation issued by the President of K.P.C.C., which is the keystone to the entire arch of this case, the entire case falls apart. There is no evidence before this Court whereby the President, K.P.C.C. had, indeed, authorised the President, D.C.C. Thus, the most crucial document is conspicuously missing from the evidence. 12. In the case of Sadashiv H. Patil, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "13. 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. 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 of the Act." 13. Therefore, the provisions of Section 3 have to be construed strictly. In the absence of authorisation of the President of K.P.C.C. to the President of D.C.C, it cannot be held that the President of D.C.C. was duly authorised to issue whip. Once there is no authorisation available on record, an inference cannot be drawn that, indeed, the President of K.P.C.C. had authorised the President of D.C.C. Once there is a lack of evidence, on a crucial point, the issue of flouting the whip does not even arise. Therefore, the learned Commissioner was unjustified in concluding that the President of D.C.C. was duly authorised by the President of K.P.C.C, and the whip was issued in terms thereto. Therefore, the learned Commissioner was unjustified in concluding that the President of D.C.C. was duly authorised by the President of K.P.C.C, and the whip was issued in terms thereto. He was equally unjustified in concluding that the whip was served upon the petitioners. But despite the service of whip upon them, they have flouted the whip. Hence, they are disqualified under Section 3 of the Act. Since the main foundation of the reasoning is flawed, the impugned order is clearly untenable and unsustainable. For the reasons stated above, these petitions are hereby allowed. The order dated 11-8-2015 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.