ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate, Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya appearing with learned advocate, Mr. Kirtan Mistry for the petitioners, learned advocate, Mr. N.P. Chaudhary appearing for the respondent no.1 and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that an application came to be filed by the respondent no.1 herein under Section 3 of the Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Disqualification Act” for short), wherein it was alleged that the petitioners had violated Whip issued by the Indian National Congress party in the meeting held for the election of the President and Vice President for Chanasma Taluka Panchayat and the respondent no.3 – Designated Officer passed impugned order dated 23.09.2019, whereby the petitioners are disqualified as Members of the Chanasma Taluka Panchayat. It is submitted that while passing impugned order, the respondent no.3 has given finding that one Bharatsinh Solanki was authorized to issue letter in favour of one Balubhai Patel and other concerned persons. It is submitted that the said Bharatsinh Solanki was not the party President of Indian National Congress party on 20.06.2018 when the election for the post of President and Vice President of Taluka Panchayat had taken place. Learned advocate at this stage has referred to the observations made by the respondent no.3 in the impugned order and, thereafter, submitted that the respondent no.3 has considered the Resolution dated 25.07.2015 passed in the Executive Committee of Gujarat Pradesh Congress Samiti, whereby the said Balubhai Patel was authorized to issue Whip and in pursuance to the said Whip, the said Balubhai Patel addressed a letter dated 19.06.2018 and thereby gave Whip to the elected members for the purpose of election of the President and Vice President of Taluka Panchayat. He submitted that relying upon the said Resolution dated 25.07.2015 and relying upon the said Whip issued by the said Balubhai Patel, the respondent no.3 has passed impugned order. 3. At this stage, learned advocate has placed on record copies of the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 in Dispute Application No.10/2018 as well as the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 in Dispute Application No.5/2017. 3. At this stage, learned advocate has placed on record copies of the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 in Dispute Application No.10/2018 as well as the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 in Dispute Application No.5/2017. It is submitted that while passing aforesaid orders by the same respondent authority i.e. the respondent no.3 herein, it has been observed by the respondent no.3 to consider the Resolution dated 25.07.2015 passed in the meeting of the Executive Committee of Gujarat Pradesh Congress Samiti and after considering the Whip issued by the said Balubhai Patel pursuance to the said Resolution, the respondent no.3 has held that the person against whom the dispute application is filed, cannot be liable to be disqualified and making such observations, both the aforesaid dispute applications were dismissed. 4. It is, therefore, submitted that same authority i.e. the respondent no.3 has taken two different view with regard to authorization given by the concerned President viz., Bharatsinh Solanki as well as Whip issued by the said Balubhai Patel and, therefore, the issue involved in the present petition requires consideration. 5. It is further submitted that now during the pendency of this petition, the election programme is declared on 02.12.2019 and, therefore, if the impugned order is not stayed then, the petition would become infructuous. In support of this submission, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 04.02.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Application No.1134/2010 in Special Civil Application No.12891/2009 and allied matters in case of Ritaben Sanjaybhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. It is, therefore, urged that the interim relief, as prayed for in this petition, be granted. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 referred to Page No.54 of the compilation and submitted that the said Balubhai Patel was authorized to issue Whip and as per the said authorization given by the concerned party, Whip was issued by the said Balubhai Patel. It is submitted that Whip was also read by the President in the meeting and, therefore looking to the said aspect, when the respondent no.3 has passed an order, it cannot be said that any error is committed by the respondent no.3 and, therefore, this Court may not grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioners. 7. It is submitted that Whip was also read by the President in the meeting and, therefore looking to the said aspect, when the respondent no.3 has passed an order, it cannot be said that any error is committed by the respondent no.3 and, therefore, this Court may not grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioners. 7. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties for the purpose of grant of interim relief. From the material placed on record by learned advocate appearing for the petitioners i.e. the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 in Dispute Application No.10/2018 as well as the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 in Dispute Application No.5/2017, it is revealed that the respondent no.3 has considered same Resolution dated 25.07.2015, by which, the said Bharatsinh Solanki, the President of Indian National Congress party has authorized the said Balubhai Patel to issue Whip and, thereafter, considering other material in both aforesaid cases, the applications filed by respective applicant were dismissed. However in the present case, while relying upon the said Resolution dated 25.07.2015, which is signed by the said Bharatsinh Solanki, the then President of Indian National Congress party, by which, the said Balubhai Patel was authorized to issue Whip, the application filed by the respondent no.1 is allowed and thereby the petitioners are declared as disqualified. It is the specific case of the petitioners that on the date on which the Whip was issued, one Amit Chavda was the President of the Indian National Congress party and Bharatsinh Solanki was not the President and, therefore, the said Balubhai Patel, who was authorized to issue Whip, cannot be treated to be valid authorization. Thus, the issue involved in the present petition requires consideration. 8. At this stage, the judgment in case of Ritaben Sanjayabhai Chauhan (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioners is required to be kept in view. In the said judgment, this Court has observed in Para Nos.14 and 15 as under, “14. Thus, the issue involved in the present petition requires consideration. 8. At this stage, the judgment in case of Ritaben Sanjayabhai Chauhan (supra), upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioners is required to be kept in view. In the said judgment, this Court has observed in Para Nos.14 and 15 as under, “14. It is not in dispute that the controversy in the main Special Civil Applications is with respect to the resignation alleged to have been tendered by the respective applicants as Councillors of Prantij Nagarpalika and Collector, Sabarkantha in exercise of power under Section 35(5) has held against the respective applicants-petitioners that the resignation tendered by the respective applicants-petitioners were voluntary and the same have been rightly accepted by the President of Prantij Nagarpalika. However, the same is subject matter of the main petitions and the said dispute is at large pending before this Court. By way of interim relief, this Court has not granted any relief suspending and/or staying the further execution and operation of the order passed by Collector, Sabarkantha as the same would tantamount to allowing the main Special Civil Applications at admission stage without final hearing. However, in the meantime, State Election Commission has now declared election programme and notification has already been issued for election of the posts of Councillors, which were held by the respective applicants and, therefore, respective applicants have preferred the present Civil Applications for appropriate interim relief restraining the respondent No.5 – State Election Commission from holding the election by office of Councillors of Prantij Nagarpalika, which were occupied by respective applicants and which is the subject matter of main petitions. 15. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that if the interim relief to the aforesaid limited extent is not granted during the pendency and final disposal of the main Special Civil Applications, and in case, the petitioners succeed in the main Special Civil Applications, not only it is likely to became the main Special Civil Applications infructuous but even it is also likely to lead to multiplicity of proceedings and third party right will be created by newly elected members. Therefore, so as to avoid any multiplicity of the proceedings and creating rights of third party and to see that main Special Civil Applications do not become infructuous, respondent No.5 is required to be restrained from further holding by-elections to the office of the members/Councillors of Prantij Nagarpalika, which were held and occupied by the applicants – petitioners, which is subject matter of main Special Civil Applications. Identical question came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.2201 of 2009 with respect to holding by-election of members/Councillors of Prantij Nagarpalika and in similar set of circumstances, the Division Bench, by interim order dated 04/12/2009 passed in Civil Application No.11754 of 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No.2201 of 2009, has been pleased to grant interim relief during the pendency of the main Letters Patent Appeal, restraining the State Election Commission from holding the by-elections to the office of members of Himmatnagar Municipality. Mr. Anjaria, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 is not in a position to dispute the same, as he himself as appeared before Division Bench on behalf of State Election Commission.” 9. Thus keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, it is required to be noted that if the interim relief as prayed for pending this petition is not granted, and in case, the petitioners succeed in the main petition, it would not only make this petition infructuous and even it would likely to lead to multiplicity of proceedings and third party right will be created by newly elected members. 10. Even the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court while passing an order dated 24.11.2016 in Special Civil Application No.16135/2016 is also required to be kept in mind. In the said order, the Division Bench has observed in Para Nos.7 and 8 as under, “7. In the present case, what is subject matter of challenge is the order passed by the designated authority whereby, the petitioners have been disqualified as Members of the District Panchayat. Insofar as the disqualification of the petitioners is concerned, the State Election Commission has no role to play. The designated authority being only an adjudicating authority, has no concern with what would be the effect in case the order of disqualification is set aside. Insofar as the disqualification of the petitioners is concerned, the State Election Commission has no role to play. The designated authority being only an adjudicating authority, has no concern with what would be the effect in case the order of disqualification is set aside. The only affected parties in the present case would be the petitioners and the person at whose instance, the petitioners were disqualified. 8. Moreover, the present case would be squarely governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commission of India v. Bajrang Bahadur Singh and others (supra). In the facts of the present case, the petitioners have been held to be disqualified by the designated authority and as observed by the Supreme Court, there is always a possibility in a given case that the decision of the designated authority could be held to be unsustainable. In the eventuality of such a conclusion, if the petitioners who have been unseated consequent upon decision of the designated authority, would be entitled to continue as Members of the District Panchayat for the remainder part of their tenure. However, in the meanwhile, if the election process is permitted to proceed, the vacancy would be filled up and there would be two persons who would be entitled to hold the post of Members of the District Panchayat. With a view to obviate such an eventuality, the court is of the view that the interim relief, as prayed for, deserves to be granted, with a rider that the matter shall be fixed for hearing and decided within a period of eight weeks from today.” 11. Therefore keeping in mind the aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that only with a view to obviate such an eventuality, the interim relief, as prayed for, deserves to be granted. 12. Hence, following order, Rule returnable on 27th February, 2020. Learned advocate, Mr. N.P. Chaudhary waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1. Interim relief in terms of Para No.7(C) till final disposal of this petition is granted. Consequently, further proceedings in pursuance to the disqualification of the petitioners as Members by election programme dated 02.12.2019 published by the State Election Officer, Gandhinagar for the post of the petitioners’ in question is also hereby stayed. Direct service is permitted today.