JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State authority. Mr. Chitrajit Upadhyay, learned advocate, waives service of notice in SCA No.11176 of 2020 for respondent No.1. However, other private respondents are the persons who applied jointly before the designated authority their interest is protected by learned advocate Mr. Chitrajit Upadhyay appearing for respondent No.1 in one matter only. 2. The petitioners by way of these petitions challenge the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the Designated Authority appointed under the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Though the impugned order is passed against the petitioners in one proceedings only, they have challenged the impugned order by filing different petitions. 3. Dakor Nagarpalika has a strength of 28 elected members in the election held in the year 2018. The composition of elected members was under; Bhartiya Jantra Party (BJP) 11 Independent 17 A meeting of general body, on 03.03.2018 for the election of president and vice president of the Nagarpalika for a first term of two and half years, was convened, the collector issued agenda for the same on 23.02.2018. 4. In a meeting convened on 03.03.2018, for the election of president and vice president of the Nagarpalika, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) nominated its member Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Patel as a candidate for the post of president, Jyotsnaben Ajaykumar Patel as a candidate for vice persident. However, Akshaykumar Mahendrabhai Patel (petitioner of SCA No.11266 of 2020), who was elected as a member of Nagarpalika set up as a candidate by BJP, made proposal for the post of president of one Jyotsnaben Hareshbhai Shah, who was elected as an Independent candidate against the official candidate for the post of president set up by BJP party, and thereby, defied the whip of the party. Not only that, while electing president at the time of voting by raising hands, petitioners did not vote to the official candidate for the post of president of the party from where they belong and instead of that they voted in favour of Jyotsnaben Hareshbhai Shah, Independent candidate, for whom, one of them made proposal for the post of president, against the mandate of the party. 5. 5. Kalpeshkumar Chandravadan Bhatt (petitioner of SCA No.11176 of 2020) filed his candidature for vice president of the Nagarpalika against the official candidate of a party – Jyotsnaben Ajaykumar Patel, and thereby, he is said to have defied the whip of the party. As such, all the petitioners have defied the whip of the party and voted for a candidate, who is not set up as candidate for the post of president as also vice president by the party from which they belong, in a meeting convened on 03.03.2018. Therefore, 4 members of Dakor Nagarpalika, filed Application No.13 of 2018 on 05.07.2018, though verified on 29.06.2018, against the petitioners alleging breach of the provisions of Section 3 of 'the Act'. The petitioners, therefore, were served with the notices along with a copy of application filed by the 4 members of Dakor Nagarpalika. The application asserted that all the petitioners have incurred disqualification in terms of Section 3 of 'the Act' by voting contrary to the directions issued by the political party i.e. BJP, to which the petitioners belong. 6. Pursuant to notices issued to the petitioners, they filed reply to the proceedings before the Designated Authority in common, dated 11.09.2018, raising several contentions therein. After hearing the parties on different dates as mentioned in the impugned order, the Designated Authority, vide order dated 02.09.2020, declared petitioners as disqualified under Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) of 'the Act'. 7. By filing aforesaid different petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order through their advocates. 8. The arguments into these petitions were led by Mr.R.J.Goswami, learned advocate in Special Civil Application No.11176 of 2020. He has submitted that the application before the Designated Authority is not filed within 30 days, in view of Rule 3 (6) of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), and therefore, the application before the Designated Authority was required to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Referring to the reply filed to the original proceedings, he has submitted that the authorization letter produced by the applicants of the application before the Designated Authority, which is at page No.22 of the compilation, appears to have been signed by the State president of BJP, Gujarat State. Referring to the reply filed to the original proceedings, he has submitted that the authorization letter produced by the applicants of the application before the Designated Authority, which is at page No.22 of the compilation, appears to have been signed by the State president of BJP, Gujarat State. However, the said authorization letter is authorizing the General Secretary of Kheda District, BJP, Shri Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, to issue whip to its members. He has further submitted that Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, in turn, issued the whip, which is at page No.54 of the compilation in SCA No.11256 of 2020, stating therein to abide by the whip issued by the party for the post of president and vice president without fail and if there is any breach thereof, the disciplinary proceedings as also disqualification proceedings would be initiated and page No.55 of the compilation of the very same SCA, a communication termed as mandate / whip said to have been issued by the Arjunsinh Chauhan, General Secretary, BJP party, Kheda District as authorized person communicated to its members to elect as president, vice president and Executive Committee Chairman the persons named in the said mandate / whip. 9. Drawing attention of the Court to Section 3(1)(b) of 'the Act', he submitted that the so called authorization letter issued by the State president of a party and the mandate / whip issued by Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, Khede District, General Secretary of party pursuant thereto cannot be said to have been issued by the political party to which members belong or by any person or authority authorized by a political party. He has submitted that the contesting respondents herein have failed to show that either the State President or the General Secretary of Kheda District, is authorized by the political party to issue the direction (mandate / whip) to its members of a party. He has further submitted that the allegation levelled before the Designated Authority is not correct in so far as it relates to service of mandate in Raj Palace Hotel by Dakor City president (BJP) as contesting respondents herein have failed to produce any evidence in support of the same. He has further submitted that the allegation levelled before the Designated Authority is not correct in so far as it relates to service of mandate in Raj Palace Hotel by Dakor City president (BJP) as contesting respondents herein have failed to produce any evidence in support of the same. He has further submitted that the claim made by the contesting respondents herein that the District General Secretary – Gopalbhai Shah and president – Rajeshbhai Ghanshaymbhai Tambodi, in a meeting room of Nagarpalika attempted to serve a whip on the petitioners but it was not accepted by them is again an assertion without any evidence in support thereof produced. He has further contended that the so called mandate / whip issued from Nadiad District General Secretary, but no evidence is produced by the contesting respondents to show that who was authorized to serve the said whip, and therefore, the application preferred by them is required to be rejected. It is further submitted by him that even if the direction (mandate / whip) is defied by the petitioners i.e. Kalpeshbhai Chandravadan Bhatt, the very party has proposed his name for the post of vice president in the second term of the Dakor Nagarpalika and he was declared elected uncontested. Therefore, he has submitted that the said act of defiance, even presumed to be correct, is condoned by the party, and therefore, the Designated Authority could not have declared him disqualified. He has further submitted that the Presiding Officer of the meeting, under Rule 10 of 'the Rules', has also not informed the members in a meeting about the whip and there is nothing mentioned about the same in the minutes of the meeting dated 03.03.2018, and therefore, the action initiated by the contesting respondents herein is required to be rejected, and therefore, the present petition is required to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order declaring the petitioners as disqualified under 'the Act'. He has further submitted that when the petitioner – Kalpeshbhai Chandravadan Bhatt, was issued again a mandate / whip for a meeting dated 28.03.2018 for passing a budget of the Nagarpalika, it is clear that the petitioner is continued as a member of the party and said action of the party can be said to have condoned the defiance of a direction in a meeting dated 03.03.2018. Therefore, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that though the party has issued a show cause notice as to why he is not suspended and dismissed from a party, which is replied by the petitioner – Kalpeshbhai Chandravadanbhai Bhatt, but no order pursuant to the said show cause notice about dismissal from the party is passed by it, and therefore, he is continued as a member of a party. 10. Drawing attention of the Court to sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of 'the Rules', he has submitted that the leader of the municipal party, or panchayat party, shall as soon as may be after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of defiance of direction (mandate / whip) of such voting or abstention and in any case within 30 days from the date of such voting or absetention inform the designated officer in Form-II whether defiance has or has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority. Therefore, he has submitted that since neither from the order nor from the documents produced by the contesting respondents before the designated authority, evidencing the production of Form-II, nor designated authority has even said anything about it, it should be presumed that such defiance is condoned by the party. According to his submission, the action under 'the Act', is very harsh, and therefore, strict compliance of the provisions of 'the Act' and 'the Rules' are required. 11. In support of his submission with regard to authority for issuance of mandate / whip, he relied on a decision in the case of Sadashiv H. Patil versus Vithal D. Teke and Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 82 , more particularly para No.9 of it, for a proposition that if the party acts through any person or authority, that person or authority must be authorized by the political party for issuing such directions. Therefore, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 12. Relying on the aforesaid decision, he has submitted that the contesting respondents had not produced any document to show that the party has authorized the State President to issue a whip or to further authorize anyone for issuance of the same. Therefore, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 12. Relying on the aforesaid decision, he has submitted that the contesting respondents had not produced any document to show that the party has authorized the State President to issue a whip or to further authorize anyone for issuance of the same. Therefore, the direction (mandate / whip) cannot be said to have been issued by the political party or any person or authority authorized by it, and therefore, in absence of such direction (mandate / whip), no proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioners and they could not have been declared disqualified having defied such invalid mandate / whip, if at all, it can be termed as whip. 13. Mr. Kunjal Pandya, learned advocate appearing in one of the petition, adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. R.J.Goswami, learned advocate, in addition submitted that since the petitioners were suspended from a party pending proceedings for dismissal, they have not been yet dismissed from the party, and therefore, it can be presumed that the act of defiance has been condoned by the conduct of the party. He has further submitted that the whip / mandate / direction was not readout by the Presiding Officer of a meeting nor produced any minutes of the said meeting, and therefore, no order could have been passed declaring them as disqualified under 'the Act'. 14. Mr. Harshadray Dave, learned advocate, submitted that the designated authority has not acted within its jurisdiction. According to his submission, the application preferred before it praying for disqualification of the petitioners as members of Nagarpalika was beyond the limitation, and therefore, the application made before it was required to be rejected outright. He has further submitted that the so called defiance of direction (mandate / whip) was on 03.03.2018 and the proceedings claimed to be verified on 29.06.2018, but it has come to be filed on 05.07.2018. Therefore, he has submitted that the application has come to be filed beyond 45 days, and therefore, it could not have been entertained at all. 15. Drawing analogy from Section 81(1) of the Representation of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.P.Act'), he has submitted that under 'the Act' even for disqualification of a member, a proceedings should have been initiated within 45 days of the alleged breach. 15. Drawing analogy from Section 81(1) of the Representation of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.P.Act'), he has submitted that under 'the Act' even for disqualification of a member, a proceedings should have been initiated within 45 days of the alleged breach. According to his submission, the provisions under 'the R.P.Act', for initiation of election petition and provisions for rendering any member disqualified under 'the Act', challenge to the same is pari materia, and therefore, it should have been initiated within 45 days of the alleged default. He has further submitted that even under Section 14 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, any challenge to the validity of election of a councillor, it has to be filed within 15 days after the date of declaration of the result of the election. He has submitted that when issue of limitation is raised before the designated authority, he must answer the same either way. However, he is not permitted to avoid answering the said issue. 16. In support of the arguments on limitation, he has relied on a decision with regard to pari materia provisions of other relevant statutes. For the same, he relied on a decision in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association V. Administrative Officer and Others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1426 , more particularly para-12 thereof, on the doctrine of 'pari materia', reference to other statutes dealing with the same subject or forming part of the same system is a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a statute. He has further submitted that the provisions for challenge to the election and / or declaring elected members to be disqualified is a same subject and forming part of a same system, and therefore, if for challenge to the election of a elected members, any limitation is provided for, that can be made applicable to the proceedings initiated under 'the Act'. 17. Adopting the arguments of the other learned advocates on the issue of a validity of a mandate, he has submitted that there is no document produced to show that the State President is authorized to issue an authorization letter for issuance of mandate / whip to any other person by the political party. 17. Adopting the arguments of the other learned advocates on the issue of a validity of a mandate, he has submitted that there is no document produced to show that the State President is authorized to issue an authorization letter for issuance of mandate / whip to any other person by the political party. He has submitted that the burden is on the contesting respondents to show that there is a valid mandate and the defiance of which may lead to action against the petitioners under 'the Act'. Relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Diptiben Vinubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 7910 of 2020, dated 31.08.2020, more particularly para-13 and 13.1, he submitted that in absence of authorization letter or evidence regarding valid whip on record, no action can be initiated under 'the Act'. He has submitted that the designated authority has taken a contrary view to its own decision while considering the application No.5 of 2018 in the case of Patan Nagarpalika. Drawing attention to para-9 to the submissions made before the designated authority, Mr. Dave, learned advocate submitted that in the said decision the designated authority had taken a view that if along with whip no authorization letter is produced, it cannot be considered to be a whip or mandate issued by the party. It is further submitted that despite drawing attention of the designated authority of the aforesaid view in the present case, a contrary view thereof is taken by the designated authority, which is not permissible. He has further submitted that the designated authority has to be consistent so far as any finding with regard to mandate of a party in absence of authorization letter to issue whip, and therefore, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 18. Relying on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.11087 of 2011 dated 02.12.2011, it is submitted that in absence of proof of the signatory to the whip having been authorized by the political party to issue the whip, the violation thereof would not attract the applicability of Section 3 (1) (b) of 'the Act'. 18. Relying on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.11087 of 2011 dated 02.12.2011, it is submitted that in absence of proof of the signatory to the whip having been authorized by the political party to issue the whip, the violation thereof would not attract the applicability of Section 3 (1) (b) of 'the Act'. Therefore, according to his submission, unless the party has issued any authorization either to the State President or Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, District General Secretary of BJP, it cannot be said that the whip issued is valid whip, and therefore, defiance thereof will not lead to initiation of proceedings under 'the Act' and they cannot be held liable to be disqualified under 'the Act'. It is submitted that if the leader of the political party fails to comply with Rule 3 (6) of 'the Rules', it may not prejudice the case of the petitioners and as such petitioners cannot be disqualified on failure thereof. Elaborating it further, it is submitted that Rule 7(3)(b) of 'the Rules, it obliges the designated authority to furnish the copy of any proceedings initiated under 'the Act' to the leader of a party for his comment thereon. For failure of the designated authority to forward such copy of the petition to the leader of the municipal party or panchayat party under Rule 7 (4) of 'the Rules', the designated authority is supposed to consider the validity of whip. Referring to Rule 8 of 'the Rules, which obliges the designated authority to determine the issue before him as expeditiously as possible and an endevour to determine the question within two months, has some valid purpose behind it. Referring to date of order to be 02.09.2020 and filing of the proceedings to be 05.07.2018, it is submitted that there is undue delay in passing the order, which frustrates the whole purpose of 'the Act', and therefore, the action of the designated authority is required to be quashed. 19. Drawing attention of the Court to a situation that the date on which one of the petitioner got elected as vice president uncontested of the Nagarpalika in the second term, the impugned order is passed which rendered him disqualified and to vacate the office of vice president. Relying on a decision in the case of Mohanbhai Ukabhai Patel and Anr. Vs. Designated Officer and Anr. Relying on a decision in the case of Mohanbhai Ukabhai Patel and Anr. Vs. Designated Officer and Anr. reported in 2012 (4) GLR 3402 , it is submitted that Rule 7(3) of 'the Rules', is mandatory. Neither from the impugned order nor from any other record it is revealed that notice of petition filed before the designated authority was given to the leader of the municipal party / panchayat party. Therefore, he has submitted that noncompliance of Rule 7(3) of 'the Rules, amounts to serious lacuna in the order, and therefore, order becomes vulnerable. 20. Relying on the decision in the case of Katara Bhaveshbhai Babubhai V. Designated Authority under the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members and Ors., reported in 2012 (5) GLR 4503 , more particularly para 6, 6.1 and 6.3 thereof, it is submitted that before duty cast under Rule 10 of 'the Rules, upon the councillor or a member to be fulfilled, it must be shown that there was a proper and legal mandate established to have been issued and after that initial burden to prove that the mandate in proper form is discharged by the person who raises plea for disqualification then only Rule 10 comes into play. Relying on a decision in the case of Sunil Narsinh Hathila and Ors. Vs. Designated Authority under the Gujarat provision for Disqualification and Anr. reported in 2011 GCD 1414 , more particularly para 5.2 thereof, it is submitted that the direction (mandate /whip) is required to be served upon the members before any proceedings, the member is sought to be disqualified for the defiance thereof. 21. Since other contention raised is already covered in the main argument of Mr. R.J.Goswami, learned advocate, about validity of the whip, to avoid repetition, it is not dealt with specifically. 22. As against that, Mr. Chitrajit Upadhyay, learned advocate, submitted that Rule 3(6) of 'the Rules, providing information to be submitted to the designated authority in Form-II is by councillor / member, who votes or abstains from voting, contrary to the mandate of the political party, and therefore, it cannot be pressed into service. He, referring to Section 3 of 'the Act' read with Rule 6 and 7 of 'the Rules, submitted that there is no expressed or implied limitation provided for submitting reference to the designated authority by a petition. He, referring to Section 3 of 'the Act' read with Rule 6 and 7 of 'the Rules, submitted that there is no expressed or implied limitation provided for submitting reference to the designated authority by a petition. In absence of any express provisions prescribing limitation, even if some limitation period is to be presumed, it would be under residual clause of The Limitation Act to be three years, whereas here it is filed within three or four months, and therefore, it is filed within the reasonable time. He has further submitted that the provisions made in the 'R.P.Act', for filing election petition cannot be applied to the elections of the local authorities as both the laws are distinct and different. He has further submitted that an analogy sought to be drawn from the other statute is misplaced. He has submitted that analogy from the other statute can be drawn, even if it is permissible, it is for the procedure in a gray area and not for prescribing any limitation. He has further submitted that even Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India also not specifying any limitation period for initiating action for defection. Referring to reply submitted by the petitioner before the designated authority, it is submitted that it was never contended that the whip / mandate is without authority of law. In absence of the challenge to the mandate / whip before the designated authority, petitioner is estopped from raising such contention and it is not permissible to be raised before this Court under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that the petitioners have not disputed the authority to issue a whip / mandate, but the authority to serve the mandate to them. They made grievance of non-service of the mandate and / or service of mandate, in absence of authorization to a person who attempted to serve them and non-production of such documentary evidence thereof. Nowhere the petitioners have questioned about the validity of the whip / mandate. 23. He has submitted that the grievance about not reading over the whip by the chair person of the meeting cannot be construed to mean there was no valid whip. Referring to Rule 10 of 'the Rules', Mr. Nowhere the petitioners have questioned about the validity of the whip / mandate. 23. He has submitted that the grievance about not reading over the whip by the chair person of the meeting cannot be construed to mean there was no valid whip. Referring to Rule 10 of 'the Rules', Mr. Upadhayay, submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the member, who is elected on symbol of the political party, while attending any meeting, to ensure whether any mandate is issued by the political party and if any mandate issued by such political party, again it is obligatory on him to obtain such mandate from political party or any person or any authority authorized by it. In support of aforesaid contention, he relied on a decision rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.733 of 2011 with Letters Patent Appeal No.735 of 2011 by a Division Bench of this Court dated 03.08.2011. He has submitted that the chair person of the meeting is only to verify that the mandate is issued by the political party or not. Thus, there is no question of service of any mandate on the petitioners, but they have to ensure whether political party to which they belong, issued any mandate / whip and if issued the petitioners were required to obtain such mandate from the political party. Hence, question of service of such mandate / whip on them does not arise. Therefore, he has submitted that the grievance raised that whip was not served to them or the person who served them the whip lacks authority to serve, therefore, pales into insignificance. 24. Countering the submissions of the petitioners that the Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan has no authority to issue a whip, it is submitted that by filing a petition in detail and production of documents initial burden to show that it is valid whip discharged by the contesting respondents, and therefore, it is for the petitioners to discharge their burden to justify that it is not a valid whip. In absence of question raised either in reply or before the designated authority about the validity of a whip, they cannot raise such contention in these proceedings before the High Court. In essence, the submission of the learned advocate for the respondents is that the validity of whip is never challenged before the designated authority. In absence of question raised either in reply or before the designated authority about the validity of a whip, they cannot raise such contention in these proceedings before the High Court. In essence, the submission of the learned advocate for the respondents is that the validity of whip is never challenged before the designated authority. Drawing attention of the Court to the first reply filed as also second reply in the form of written submissions before the designated authority, it is submitted that they have not questioned the validity of a whip. He has further submitted that till today, the petitioners claimed to be a members of the political party, and therefore, they must know the authority to issue whip and it is for them to see that it is a valid whip and perhaps for that reason only, they cannot question the validity of a whip. 25. It is further submitted that the rules are not mandatory. Relying on a decision in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Versus Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 747 , more particularly para- 18, it is submitted that the provisions of Rule 6 and 7 are directory in nature, and therefore, on account of non-filing of an affidavit as required under the rules, a petition cannot be rendered invalid nor would the assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman on its basis be adversely affected or rendered bad in any manner. Therefore, non-compliance of rules, the decision rendered by the designated authority cannot be held to be invalid. It is further submitted that if no contention is raised before the designated authority with regard to validity of a whip, while exercising powers of judicial review, this Court cannot permit the petitioners to raise such contention. Relying on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.5504 of 2009 in the case of Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia and Ors. Vs. Competent Authority appointed under Anti-Defection Act and Anr, dated 15.09.2009, more particularly para-32 thereof, it is submitted that after 13.2.2007 i.e. insertion of Rule 10 to 'the rules', it is for the alleged defaulter to discharge the primary onus to ascertain as to whether any mandate has been issued by such political party, and if issued he shall obtain the copy thereof. Therefore, unless and until that burden is discharged a rebuttable presumption arises that such a political party has issued a mandate and the alleged defaulter has acted contrary to such a direction in light of the information available on record as furnished by the leader of the party in the local body. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitions filed by the petitioners be rejected. 26. Relying on a decision in the case of Pragneshkumar Jayatilal Soni Vs. Pankajkumar Mangaldas Patel reported in 2020 (3) GLR 2080 , more particularly para 14.1 to 14.5, it is submitted that under Rule 10 of 'the Rules, it is the obligation on the councillor / member to ensure and / or obtain any whip issued by any political party. It is submitted that if the councillor / member fails to show that he had ensured and /or obtained the mandate issued by the political party, he cannot defend the action initiated against him for disqualification. He, relying on a decision in the case of Thakrshibhai Shavshibhai Rathod Versus A J Shah Designated Officer reported in 2018 (3) GLH 306 , more particularly para 9 thereof, has submitted merely because whip / mandate was not served upon the alleged defaulter individually cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned order. He has further relied on a decision in the case of Rajeshriben Vinayakbhai Dave and Ors. Vs. Designated Officer – A. K. Rakesh and Ors. reported in 2016 (1) GLR 451 , more particularly para 26 thereof, and submitted that the rules are procedural provision. Rule 6 and 7 are directory and not mandatory. He has further relied on a decision in the case of Lalsingh G. Rathva and Ors. Vs. Competent Authority Sports Youth and Cultural Activities Department and Ors., reported in 2010 (1) GLR 718 , and it is submitted that the argument by the petitioners that the defiance of mandate / whip is condoned by subsequent act of the party as they have not been dismissed from the party though notices as to why they should not be suspended and / or dismissed, the said submission, according to the learned advocate for the contesting respondents, cuts at the root of the case. According to him, when they pleaded that their act is condoned, it presupposes that there was a valid whip which has been defied by them. According to him, when they pleaded that their act is condoned, it presupposes that there was a valid whip which has been defied by them. Therefore, they cannot argue that there is not valid whip. 27. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP, submitted that the provisions cited of two different acts by the learned advocates for the petitioners on the point of limitation are misplaced. He has submitted that, so far as 'the Act' and 'the rules' are concerned, there is a conscious departure in providing limitation thereof. Relying on a decision in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan and Anr. reported in (1994) 3 SCC 440 , more particularly para-31, it is submitted that the legislative intent of the scheme cannot be frustrated on the basis of limitation prescribed in other acts which can never be termed as 'pari materia'. He has submitted that no question can be raised by the petitioners with regard to verification by Chair-person of meeting of a mandate by a political party and circulated it to the members, unless and until they have fulfilled their part of obligation in ensuring issuance of mandate and if it is there to obtain it. He has further submitted that the designated authority has not committed any error in arriving at conclusion disqualifying the petitioners as members of the Dakor Nagarpalika, and therefore, he has requested this Court to reject these petitions. 28. For the decision of present petitions, certain provisions of 'the Act' as also 'the Rules', which are pressed into service by the parties, are necessary to be referred: “ACT ” Section 2. 28. For the decision of present petitions, certain provisions of 'the Act' as also 'the Rules', which are pressed into service by the parties, are necessary to be referred: “ACT ” Section 2. Definition (d) "municipal party" in relation to a councillor belonging to any political party in accordance with the Explanation to Section 3 means,- (i) in the case of a councillor of a municipal corporation, the group consisting of all the councillors of the municipal corporation for the time being belonging to that political party in accordance with the said Explanation; (ii) in the case of a councillor of a municipality the group consisting of all the councillors of the municipality for he time being belonging to that political party 1in accordance with the said Explanation ; (h) "panchayat party" in relation to a member belonging to any political party in accordance with the Explanation to Section 3 means the group consisting of all the members of the panchayat for the time being belonging to that political party in accordance with the said Explanation. Section-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. Explanation. - (1) For the purpose 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 by 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, or as the case may be, a member. (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, or 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 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 subsection (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).” “Rules 2.Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “designated officer” means an officer designated by the State Government under Section 6; (b) “Form” means a form appended to these rules; (c) “leader” in relation to a municipal party, or as the case may be, a panchayat party means a member of the party chosen by it as its leader and includes any other member of the party authorized by the party to act, in the absence of the leader, or discharge, the functions of, the leader of the purposes of these rules; (d) “specified officer” in relation to - (i) a municipal corporation, means the Municipal Secretary of the Corpora-tion; (ii) a panchayat, means the Secretary of the Panchayat; (iii) the municipality, means the Chief Officer of the Municipality. 3. Information to be furnished by leader of municipal party or panchayat party. 3. Information to be furnished by leader of municipal party or panchayat party. - (1) The leader of each municipal party or, as the case may be, Panchayat party (other than a municipal party consisting of only one member or a panchayat party consisting of only one member) shall, before the first meeting of the municipal corporation, the panchayat, or the municipality, or where such municipal party or panchayat party is formed after the first such meeting, within thirty days after its information or, in either case within such further period as the designated officer may for sufficient cause allow, furnish the following information to the designated officer, namely :- (a) a statement (in writing) containing names of members of such municipal party or, as the case may, be, panchayat party together with other particulars regarding such members in Form 1 and the names and designations of the members of such party who have been authorized by it for communicating with the designated officer for the purposes of these rules; (b) a copy of the rules and regulations (whether known as such or as constitution or by any other name) of the political party concerned, and (c) whether such municipal party or panchayat party has any separate set of rules and regulations (whether known as such or as constitution or by any other name), also a copy of such rules and regulations. (2) Where a municipal party or panchayat party consists of only one member, such member shall furnish a copy of the rules and regulations mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) to the designated officer, before the first meeting of the municipal corporation, panchayat or, as the case may be, municipality or a member of a panchayat after the first meeting, within thirty days after the meeting of the municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality which he first attends or, in either case within such further period as the designated officer may for sufficient cause allow., (3) In the event of any increase in the strength of a municipal party consisting of only one councillor or member or, as the case may be, panchayat party consisting of only one member, the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall apply in relation to such municipal party or, as the case may be, panchayat party as if such municipal party or, as the case may be, panchayat party, has been formed on the first date on which its strength increased. (4) Whenever any change takes places in the information furnished by the leader of a municipal party or, as the case may be, panchayat party under sub-rule(1) or by a member under sub-rule(2), he shall within thirty days thereafter, or within such further period as the designated officer may for sufficient cause allow, furnish in writing information to the designated officer with respect to such change. (5) In the case of municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality in existence on the date of commencement of these rules, the rules, the reference in sub-rules (1) and (2) to the first meeting of the municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality shall be construed as a reference to the meeting held immediately after the commencement of these rules. (5) In the case of municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality in existence on the date of commencement of these rules, the rules, the reference in sub-rules (1) and (2) to the first meeting of the municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality shall be construed as a reference to the meeting held immediately after the commencement of these rules. (6) Where a member belonging to any political party votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of a municipal corporation panchayat or municipality contrary to any direction issued by such political party, person or authority authorized by it in this behalf, without obtaining in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority, the leader of the municipal party or panchayat party concerned or where such member is the leader, or as the case may be, the sole member of such municipal party, or panchayat, such member as soon as may be after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention and in any case within thirty days from the date of such voting or abstention inform the designated officer in Form-II whether such voting or abstention has or has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority. Explanation .- A member may be regarded as having abstained from voting only when he, being entitle to vote, refrains from voting. 4. Information to be furnished by councillors and Members. (1) Every person who has before the date of commencement of these rules become a Councillor of the Municipal Corporation or Municipality or a Member of a Panchayat shall furnish to the specified officer within thirty days from such date or within such further period as the designated officer may for sufficient cause allow, a statement of particulars and declaration in Form III. (2) Every person who on the constitution of a municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality after the date of commencement of these rules, becomes a Councillor of the municipal corporation or the municipality or a member of the panchayat shall, before attending the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation, Panchayat or municipality so constituted deposit with the specified officer, a specified certificate certifying his election and also furnish to the specified officer a statement of particulars and declaration in Form III. Provided that a councillor of the Municipal Corporation or the Municipality or a member of the Panchayat who contested as a candidate of any political party and had already made declaration to the election officer to that effect shall not be required to furnish to the specified officer a statement of particulars and declaration in form III Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-rule the expression “specified Certificate” means, - (a) in relation to a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation a certificate from the Municipal Commissioner; (b) in relation to a panchayat, a certificate from the Chief Electoral Officer of the State of Gujarat; and (c) in relation to a Councilor, of the municipality, a certificate from the Collector of the district in which the municipal borough of the municipality is situate. (3)(a) A summary of the information furnished under this rule shall be published if it relates to the Councillors, (i) of the office of the Municipal Corporation or as the case may be, municipal if it relates to the Councillors, (ii)of the office of the panchayat, if it relates to the members; (b) If any discrepancy in the summary of Information published under clause (a) is pointed out to the satisfaction of the specified officer, necessary corriggendum shall be published in the manner specified in the said clause (a). 6. Reference to be by petitions. - (1) No reference any question as to whether a councillor or member has become subject to disqualification under the Act shall be made except by a petition in relation to such councillor or member made in accordance with the provisions of this rule. (2) A petition in relation to a councillor or member may be made in writing to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat or designated officer by any other councillor or, as the case may be , member. (3) Before making any petition in relation to any councillor or member the petitioner shall satisfy himself that there are reasonable ground for believing that a question has arisen as to whether such councillor or member has become subject to disqualification under the Act. (4) Every petition. (3) Before making any petition in relation to any councillor or member the petitioner shall satisfy himself that there are reasonable ground for believing that a question has arisen as to whether such councillor or member has become subject to disqualification under the Act. (4) Every petition. - (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; and (b) shall be accompanied by copies of the documentary evidence if any, on which the petitioner relies and where the petitioner relies on any information furnished to him by any person a statement containing the names and addressed of such persons and the gist of such information as furnished by each such person. (5) Every petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the verification of pleadings. (6) Every annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. 7. Procedure. (1) On receipt of a petition under rule 6 the Chief Secretary to the State Government or the designated officer shall consider whether the petition complies with the requirement of rule. (2) If the petition does not comply with the requirements of rule, the Chief Secretary or as the case may be, the designated officer shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly. (3) If the petition complies with the requirements of rule , the Chief Secretary or, as the case may be, the designated officer shall cause copies of the petition and of the annexures thereto to be forwarded.- (a) to the councillor or member in relation to whom the petition has been made; and (b) where such councillor or member belongs to any municipal party or a panchayat party and or such petition has not been made by the leader thereof also to such leader, and such or councillor member or leader shall, within seven days of the receipt of such copies, or within such further period as the designated officer may for sufficient cause allow, forward his comments in writing thereon to the Chief Secretary or the designated officer. (4) After considering the comments, if any, in relation to the petition, received under sub-rule (3) within the period allowed (whether originally or on extention under that sub-rule) the Chief Secretary or designated officer may either proceed to determine the question or, if he is satisfied, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case that it is necessary or expedient so to do, refer the petition to such officer as he deems fit for making a preliminary inquiry and submitting a report to him. (5) The Chief Secretary or the designated officer shall, as soon as may be after referring a petition to the officer under sub-rule (4), intimate the petitioner accordingly and cause an announcement to be made with respect to such reference in a meeting of the municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality or if such meeting is not likely to be held soon, cause the information as to the reference to be published in the manner specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule- 4. (6) Where the Chief Secretary or designated officer makes a reference under sub-rue (4) to the officer he shall proceed to determine the question as soon as may be after receipt of the report from the officer. (7) The procedure which shall be followed by the Chief Secretary or designated officer for determining any question and the procedure which shall be followed by the officer for the purpose of making a preliminary inquiry under sub-rule (4) shall be consistent with the rules of natural justice and neither the Chief Secretary or designated officer shall come to any findings that a councillor or member has become subject to disqualification under the Act without affording a reasonable opportunity to such councillor or member to represent his case and to be heard in person. RULE 10 A councillor of Municipal corporation of the municipality or a member of the Panchayat who is elected on the symbol of political party shall while attending any meeting of Municipal Corporation or the Municipality or a Panchayat ensure whether any mandate is issued by such political party and if any mandate is issued by such political party, he shall obtain such mandate from such political party, or by any person or authority authorized by it. The Chairperson of any meeting of Municipal Corporation or the Municipality or a Panchayat shall verify that such a mandate has been issued by the political party, and circulated to the councillor of Municipal Corporation or the Member of Municipality or a member of the Panchayat.” 29. The argument made on behalf of the petitioners with regard to service of the whip on the members, who are sought to be disqualified, requires to be dealt with keeping in mind the provisions made in 'the Act' and 'the Rules'. There is no express provision either under 'the Act' or under 'the Rules' to serve the whip on the individual members. However, looking at the whip issued in the present case by Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, it appears that it is issued to the individual member. Since provisions under 'the Act' are stringent, its compliance has to be strict. Therefore, irrespective of express provision in 'the Act' or 'the Rules', of serving mandate individually to the members of a political party, may be read into it. However, keeping in mind the language used in Rule 10 of 'the Rules' in the second part when it provides an obligation of the Chair-person of any meeting to verify that such mandate / whip has been issued by the political party and circulated to the councillor of a Municipal Corporation or, municipality or a member of the panchayat, may lead to read service of mandate / whip to individual members. But keeping in mind first part of Rule 10 of 'the Rules', when rule casts duty on councillor or a member not only to ensure but to obtain any whip or mandate, the service of whip over the individual members is ruled out. Therefore, the argument that whip / mandate was not served upon the members or the person who had attempted service of the same on them was not authorized to serve the mandate is inconsequential. 30. I am fortified in my view by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.733 of 2011, wherein, it is clearly held in para 17 that the members were to ensure and obtain the whip issued by the political party. The question of service of such mandate / whip upon them did not arise. I am fortified in my view by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.733 of 2011, wherein, it is clearly held in para 17 that the members were to ensure and obtain the whip issued by the political party. The question of service of such mandate / whip upon them did not arise. Thus, by the view taken in the aforesaid LPA, the view express in the case of Sunil Narsinh Hathila and Ors (supra), on the issue of service of whip over the members is impliedly overruled. 31. The another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the Chair-person of the meeting has neither informed the members about the whip of the political party nor it has been read over to them at the time of meeting and also not recorded in the minutes of the meeting, requires no further discussion in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.733 of 2011. At any rate, the provisions made in Rule 10 of 'the Rules' do not speak of any obligation on the Chair-person of the meeting either to serve the mandate to the members of the political party or to read over such mandate at the time of meeting for the election of president or vice president. The said issue is also dealt with by this Court in a decision in the case of Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia (supra) in para 34 to 36 and it has been held that Rule 10 of 'the Rules' cannot be read to mean that the Chair-person is required to obtain a copy of mandate and circulate the same amongst the councillor or member of a political party. Thus, there is no merit in the contention and it is hereby rejected. 32. One of the petitioners raised contention that subsequent to the meeting dated 03.03.2018 where he is alleged to have defied the mandate / whip of a political party, in a subsequent meeting dated 28.03.2018 for passing a budget of the Nagarpalika, the political party again issued a whip to him and he followed the whip. The said action of the political party pressed into service to argue that even if the member has defied the whip, the said action is condoned by the political party, and therefore, he cannot be subsequently disqualified under 'the Act'. 33. The said action of the political party pressed into service to argue that even if the member has defied the whip, the said action is condoned by the political party, and therefore, he cannot be subsequently disqualified under 'the Act'. 33. Considering the provisions of 'the Act' and 'the Rules', more particularly as provided in Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, the condonation of such act must be within fifteen days from the date of defiance thereof. There is no provision either in 'the Act' or in 'the Rules' that such condonation is permissible beyond even fifteen days of the defiance. Keeping in mind the requirement under Rule 3 (6) of 'the Rules', that the leader of a political party shall inform the designated officer of such defiance and decision of the party whether it has or has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority leads to a conclusion that if one has to condone such defiance it has to be within fifteen days of the defiance thereof and not beyond. Considering the provisions of 'the Act' and 'the Rules', it is clear that the condonation of an act of defiance has to be expressive and in writing. At the same time, neither 'the Act' nor 'the Rules' provides for any deemed condonation of defiance, if it is not condoned within fifteen days of the defiance thereof. Considering the scheme of 'the Act' and 'the Rules', it is clear that once a reference by way of petition is submitted to the designated officer, it cannot be rendered futile by not pursuing it even by the person filing it. If that is so, if any person incurs disqualification under 'the Act', he is required to be declared disqualified, even if any person abandons the reference made by way of petition, based on information furnished in Form-II as required under Rule 3(6) of 'the Rules'. 34. Thus, it is not even within the control of the political party to condone such defiance beyond thirty days thereof. The argument by the petitioners that though they were served with the notice for dismissal of their membership from the political party, they have not been yet dismissed from it, and therefore, they continue to be a member of a political party, and therefore, their act of defiance, if at all so said, is deemed to have been condoned by the political party. Therefore, the aforesaid contention also, in view of discussion hereinabove, merits outright rejection. 35. Rule 3 provides for certain information to be furnished by the leader of a municipal party / panchayat party. Under Rule 3(1), the leader of a municipal party / panchayat party, is obliged to furnish certain details in Form-I as also the names and designations of the members of such party who have been authorized by it for with the designated officer for the purpose of the rules. Over and above that copy of the rules and regulations, (whether known as such or( constitution or by any other name), of the political party concerned, to be furnished before the first meeting of the municipal party / panchayat party or, within such further period as the designated officer may for sufficient cause allow. Under Rule 3 (6), the leader of municipal party / panchayat party is obliged to inform the designated officer in Form – II where a member belonging to any political party votes or abstains from voting in any meeting contrary to any direction issued by such political party, person or authority authorized by it in this behalf, as soon as may be after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention from voting. However, in any case the designated officer is to be informed in Form-II within 30 days from the date of such voting or abstention whether such act has or has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority. The explanation below Rule 3(6) of 'the Rules' is not necessary for the decision of these petitions. 36. Rule 6 (1) of 'the Rules' provides that no reference of any question as to whether a councillor or member has become subject to disqualification under 'the Act' shall be made except by a petition in relation to such councillor or member made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of 'the Rules'. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, such petition in relation to a councillor or member in writing may be filed by any other councillor or, as the case may be, member. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, such petition in relation to a councillor or member in writing may be filed by any other councillor or, as the case may be, member. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 provides that before making any petition in relation to any councillor or member, the petitioner shall satisfy himself that there are reasonable ground for believing that a question has arisen as to whether such councillor or member has become subject to disqualification under 'the Act'. Rule 6(4) of 'the Rules' provides for the contents of the petition, while Rule 6(5) of 'the Rules' stipulates how a petition shall be signed and verified and Rule 6(6) of 'the Rules' requires every annexure to the petition be signed and verified in the same manner as the petition be signed and verified. 37. Rule 7 of 'the Rules' provides the procedure for determination of the issue before the designated authority. Subrule (2) of Rule 7 provides that if the petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 6, the designated authority shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioners accordingly. Rule 7(3)(b) provides that if the petition praying for disqualification of a councillor or a member has not been made by the leader of municipal party / panchayat party, a copy of such petition has also to be issued to the leader of the such party requiring him to forward his comments in writing thereon to the designated authority within 7 days of the receipt of such copies or within such further period as permitted by designated officer for sufficient cause. Rule 7(7) provides for determining any question by the designated authority consistent with rules of natural justice affording a reasonable opportunity to such councillor or member to represent his case and to be heard in person against whom such petition is preferred. 38. Rule 10 of 'the Rules' which came to be inserted vide Notification in the official Gazette dated 13.2.2007. Bare reading of said rule indicates that it is divided into two parts. 38. Rule 10 of 'the Rules' which came to be inserted vide Notification in the official Gazette dated 13.2.2007. Bare reading of said rule indicates that it is divided into two parts. The first part relates to the obligation of the councillor or a member who is elected on the symbol of political party while attending any meeting of Municipal Corporation / municipality / panchayat to ensure whether any mandate is issued by such political party and if issued to obtain such mandate from such political party or a person or authority authorized by it. The second part of Rule 10 obliges the Chair-person of any meeting of Municipal Corporation, municipality or a panchayat to verify that such mandate has been issued by a political party and circulated to the councillor or a member. 39. In view of Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(6) of 'the Rules', the leader of municipal party / panchayat party before the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation, the panchayat or the municipality, obliged to furnish details in Form-I to the designated officer containing names of members of the parties together with the names and designations of the members of such parties who have been authorized by it for communicating with the designated officer for the purpose of the rules. Therefore, when rules and regulations (whether known as such or as constitution or by any other name) of the political party is also required to be furnished to the designated officer, it is for the purpose of comparing, as and when a dispute with regard to issuance or authority of the mandate is challenged before it, with the information supplied by the leader of the party in the local body, which is the information received from an authorized source. 40. The purpose and object of 'the Act' is to ensure the evil of political defections to be controlled and curbed. Person who is elected on the basis of a symbol of a political party, on the basis of the programme of that political party, and who is set up as a candidate by the said political party cannot be permitted to ditch such political party for personal gains as the same would result in frustrating the will of the people who elected the said person on the aforesaid basis of affiliation with a particular political party. A plain reading of the provisions of 'the Act' indicates that on happening of an event the disqualification comes into effect and the procedural rules cannot be then read so as to negate and stultify the requirement of 'the Act' in light of the purpose and object of 'the Act'. The designated authority, while following the procedure laid down in 'the Rules', is supposed to accept and consider factual information received from the leader of the party in terms of Rule 3 of 'the Rules. The designated authority is required to ascertain with reference to the information already available on record in the form of various forms namely Form Nos.I, II etc., while determining whether a petition presented under Rule 6 is required to be proceeded with because Rule 6(1) of the Rules does not necessarily require filing of the petition only by a leader of the party in a local body. Thus, basic contents of the petition have to be verified and ascertained with the information supplied by the leader of the party as provided under 'the Rules', which would be the information received from an authorized source. The said provisions, prima-facie, rules out a case of petty politicking by one councillor against another. 41. Rule 3(6) of 'the Rules' provides for furnishing the information to the designated officer in Form-II with regard to whether voting or abstention has or has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority where a member belonging to a political party votes or abstains from voting in any meeting of municipal corporation / panchayat or a municipality contrary to any direction issued by such political party, person or authority authorized by it in this behalf. Furnishing of the said information is with a specific purpose where a case is sought to be made out by way of a petition that particular councillor or member has acted contrary to the direction issued by a political party to vote or abstain from voting in any meeting of municipal corporation, panchayat or municipality, the information furnished by the leader of the party in a local body shall permit the designated officer to proceed on the footing that (1) Such a councillor / member was elected on a symbol of such political party as a member of such political party, (2) such political party has issued a particular direction in relation to voting at a meeting, (3) the concerned councillor / member has acted contrary to such direction, (4) no prior permission had been obtained by the concerned councillor / member from such political party, (5) and the contrary action has or has not been condoned by such political party. Once a petition received by the designated officer in accordance with Rule 6 of 'the Rules' the designated officer is able to cross verify the information supplied by the leader of the party in a local body, which has been supplied in compliance with a statutory rule. 42. In view of Rule 10 of 'the Rules', the primary onus to discharge is on the alleged defaulter. The initial part of Rule 10 obliges the alleged defaulter to ascertain as to whether any mandate has been issued by political party, and if issued he shall obtain a copy thereof. The said requirement rules out a possible contention that no such mandate is issued or served upon the alleged defaulter. When a duty is cast upon the alleged defaulter to ensure and obtain the mandate from the political party or person or authority, he cannot be heard to say that no such mandate is issued or it was not served upon him or the person who had attempted to serve the mandate has no authority to serve the same. Whereas second part of Rule 10 of 'the Rules' obliges the Chair-person of the meeting to verify whether any mandate is issued by a political party and circulated to the councillor or a member of municipal corporation, the municipality or the panchayat. Whereas second part of Rule 10 of 'the Rules' obliges the Chair-person of the meeting to verify whether any mandate is issued by a political party and circulated to the councillor or a member of municipal corporation, the municipality or the panchayat. The second part of 'the Rules' does not oblige the Chair-person to circulate the mandate of the political party to the members of the political party after obtaining a copy of such mandate from the political party. It is for the purpose of ensuring that the Chair-person knows the correct position so that in a given case if a councillor / member makes a statement before the said authority that no such mandate has been issued the Chairperson may make the position clear. 43. However, in view of decision in the case of Katara Bhaveshbhai Babubhai (supra), more particularly para 6.3 thereof, it is held that initial burden to prove that the mandate in proper form was issued is discharged by the person who raises plea for disqualification, that Rule 10 of 'the Rules' comes into play. It is further held that if the fact of proper and legal mandate having been issued is established, then only the duty cast upon the councillor or a member can arise. In short, unless it is established that there was a legal and valid mandate by the person who raises the plea for disqualification, the Rule 10 will not come into play. 44. Considering the language used in Section 3(1)(b) of 'the Act', in respect of issuing of any direction by the political party, to vote or abstain from voting in any meeting of Municipal Corporation, panchayat or municipality, alleged against the member, to which he belongs, such direction has to be issued by political party or by any person or authority authorized by it. Thus, basic requirement is of a direction either issued by the political party itself or by any person or authority authorized by political party. Thus, basic requirement is of a direction either issued by the political party itself or by any person or authority authorized by political party. So far as direction (mandate / whip) claimed to have been issued by Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, District General Secretary of BJP party as authorized by State President of BJP Party, cannot be said to be a direction by a political party or by a person or authority authorized by political party, in absence of any contemporaneous record produced before the designated authority or submitted to it in the form of information as required under Rule 3 of 'the Rules'. In the present case, where there is a political party at a National Level, either party itself issues direction or authorize any person or authority, to do so, neither the State President nor District General Secretary can issue such direction (mandate / whip) to any of the members of a political party in absence of authorization by political party. In the present case neither the persons, who have prayed for disqualification of the petitioners before the designated authority, nor the leader of any political party has supplied information to the designated authority as required under 'the Rules', and therefore, he is also not able to check or cross verify whether any such direction (mandate / whip) is issued by a political party or by any person or authority authorized by it or not. Though political party runs through person in flesh and blood, the Constitution, rules or regulations may provide for any mode for communicating a decision of a political party. If in accordance with the Constitution, rules or regulations any decision by a political party is taken to authorize any person or authority either to issue any direction (mandate / whip) directly at District level or a State level, it has to authorize a particular person or authority, may be even State authority of a political party to issue such direction. In absence of any Constitution, rules and regulations of any political party furnished as required under 'the Rules' by leader of municipal party / panchayat party, even designated authority would also be at a loss to ascertain the same in case of abandonment of petition filed under 'the Act' and 'the Rules' to decide on the issue of a disqualification. In absence of any Constitution, rules and regulations of any political party furnished as required under 'the Rules' by leader of municipal party / panchayat party, even designated authority would also be at a loss to ascertain the same in case of abandonment of petition filed under 'the Act' and 'the Rules' to decide on the issue of a disqualification. Neither Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, General Secretary of District Level or State President of State Level of BJP party can be said to be a political party. If at all, any Constitution, rules and regulations of a political party of National Level, authorizes any person or State Level authority to issue such direction (mandate / whip), that has to be furnished to the designated authority as required under 'the Rules' and in absence thereof, it cannot be said that there exists any valid or legal direction (mandate / whip), the defiance of which by any member of a political party rendering him disqualified for being a member of a panchayat / municipality. Therefore, in view of decision in the case of Katara Bhaveshbhai Babubhai (supra), the burden lies on a person who raises plea for disqualification to show that there exists any legal or valid mandate in accordance with Section 3(1)(b) of 'the Act', the defiance of which is alleged against the petitioners, Rule 10 of the Rules cannot be pressed into service which obliges the petitioners / alleged defaulters to ensure and obtain the direction (mandate / whip) from a political party. Furthermore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv H. Patil (supra), in absence of proof of document showing that political party has authorized any person or authority to issue whip, the alleged violation of whip would not attract the disqualification under Section 3(1)(b) of 'the Act'. The designated authority has failed to advert to the said issue. Neither it has addressed itself about the compliance of Rule 3 of 'the Rules' nor cared to ascertain whether political party has issued any authorization to any person or authority to issue such direction, though it has devoted so many pages to render the decision. Therefore, the decision relied on by the contesting respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No.733 of 2011 (supra) and decision in the case of Special Civil Application No.5504 of 2009 in the case of Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia and Ors. Therefore, the decision relied on by the contesting respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No.733 of 2011 (supra) and decision in the case of Special Civil Application No.5504 of 2009 in the case of Devabhai Parbatbhai Avadia and Ors. (supra), are not applicable into the present case as direction (mandate / whip) cannot be said to be issued by the political party. It is also not shown that the political party had either authorized any person or authority to issue such whip. Thus, on record there exists no legal or valid whip, defiance of which can lead to any action against the petitioners under 'the Act'. 45. The argument that the petitioners have not challenged the validity of a whip even by filing reply they cannot successfully argue that there exists no legal and valid mandate on any ground, though said argument appears to be impressive, it cannot be countenanced, more particularly, when the issuance of valid and legal mandate for initiating action for declaring member disqualified which entails very serious consequence of unseating member elected by people, it is for the person who raises plea for disqualification to show the existence of legal and valid mandate. It being a pure question of law, it can be raised in any proceedings including the proceedings before this Court. Furthermore, it is not the case of the contesting respondents that either the State president or Arjunsinh Udesinh Chauhan, General, Secretary of Kheda District, BJP, is authorized by political party to issue a direction (mandate / whip). 46. In absence of any case argued or contemporaneous record produced, that the political party has authorized its State President or District General Secretary to issue any direction (mandate / whip), it cannot be presumed that there exists any legal or valid whip. Assuming that there exists such Constitution, rules or regulations authorizing the State President of a political party to issue such direction (mandate / whip), it is for State President to issue such direction and he cannot further delegate it to any other person in absence of any express provisions either in 'the Act' or in 'the Rules' or in the Constitution, rules or regulations of a political party. In short, if the State President is delegated the powers of issuing such direction by a political party, the State President cannot redelegate the same to any other person. In short, if the State President is delegated the powers of issuing such direction by a political party, the State President cannot redelegate the same to any other person. When 'the Act' itself permits only political party to authorize any person or authority to issue such direction (mandate / whip), it never speaks of further delegation by a person or authority. The action under 'the Act and 'the Rules' is stringent in nature and it has 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 reference under rule 6 of 'the Act'. 47. The designated authority, while deciding the application, has not examined and verified from the record whether there is any information as required under 'the Act' and 'the Rules', is furnished by the leader of any municipal party or / panchayat party so as to cross verify the legality and validity of the direction (mandate / whip) issued by the political party. It appears that no political parties have provided the required information under 'the Rules' so as to achieve the purpose of 'the Act' in required forms to the designated authority. Non supply of such required information to the designated authority leads to different arguments or different claims with regard to service or non-service of mandate, authority or no authority to issue whip and so on. It is with a view to clip such arguments the legislature has mandated the leader of the political party to furnish necessary details to the designated authority. Therefore, failure on the part of leader of the party of the contesting respondents in the Nagarpalika to provide necessary details to the designated authority prior to the first meeting of Nagarpalika to elect president and vice president which is one more reason to refuse the claim made by them before the designated authority. However, the designated authority has not adverted to such requirement and passed the impugned order, which is required to be quashed and set aside. 48. Considering the submissions with regard to limitation in preferring proceedings initiated by petition before the designated authority for the purpose of disqualification, neither 'the Act' nor 'the Rules' provided for any limitation to initiate the same. 48. Considering the submissions with regard to limitation in preferring proceedings initiated by petition before the designated authority for the purpose of disqualification, neither 'the Act' nor 'the Rules' provided for any limitation to initiate the same. The argument that it should have been filed within 30 days or 45 days maximum, keeping in mind to obtain prior permission of the political party, person or, authority to act contrary to any direction (mandate / whip) issued by it, condonation of defiance to vote or abstain from voting in any meeting within 15 days from the date of such voting or abstention as provided under Section 3(1)(b) of 'the Act' as also information to be furnished in Form-II by the leader of a political party as provided under Rule 3(6) of 'the Rules', to be after the expiry of 15 days from such voting or abstention conveying information under 'the Act' is misconceived. As such, there is no provisions under 'the Act' or 'the Rules' which require filing of the proceedings within a particular period of limitation. An analogy sought to be drawn, placing reliance on the provisions of 'the R.P.Act' and Gujarat Municipalities Act, providing limitation for challenge to the election is again misplaced. The reliance placed on a decision in the case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Association (Supra), to press into service, doctrine of pari materia provisions, contended that those two statutes and the present Act and Rules deal with the same subject and forming part of the same system, and therefore, it is a permissible aid to the construction of a provisions in a statute. I fail to see how the provisions in 'the Act' and 'the Rules' and other two statutes, referred to hereinabove, can be said to be pari materia. Neither of those statutes deal with provisions for initiating action for defection. At the same time, 'the Act' as also 'the rules' do not provide any challenge to the election of a candidate. Both operates in a different field and for different purposes. Neither 'the Act' nor 'the Rules' either expressly or impliedly provide limitation for initiation of proceedings to declare any member / councillor disqualified. At the same time, 'the Act' as also 'the rules' do not provide any challenge to the election of a candidate. Both operates in a different field and for different purposes. Neither 'the Act' nor 'the Rules' either expressly or impliedly provide limitation for initiation of proceedings to declare any member / councillor disqualified. When 'the Act' provides for even condonation of defiance by a member of any party, either with prior permission or within 15 days of the alleged defiance, it would be very difficult to read any limitation for initiating action under 'the Act' or 'the Rules'. Not only that, the legislature has provided action to be initiated praying for disqualification under 'the Act' by way of petition by any other councillor or, as the case may be, member. 49. At any rate, since the petition under 'the Act' as provided under 'the Rules', has come to be filed within approximately 4 months of the alleged default, it can be presumed to have been filed within a reasonable time, and therefore, there is no requirement, which can be read into 'the Act' or 'the Rules', that it should have been filed in 45 days or 15 days, drawing analogy from 'the R.P.Act' or the Gujarat Municipalities Act. 50. Thus, operation of such law should not be limited, more particularly legislature in its wisdom has not provided any limitation for preferring application under 'the Act' or 'the Rules', despite Rule 8(1) of 'the Rules, expects the authority to determine the question as expeditiously as possible and an endevour to determine it within two months thereof. 51. In view of the aforesaid, the present petitions are required to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the designated authority in Application No.13 of 2018, whereby, the petitioners have been declared to be disqualified as members of the Dakor Nagarpalika, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 52. Mr. Chitrajit Upadhyay, learned advocate for contesting respondents prays for stay of the present judgment and order for a period of four weeks so as to enable them to prefer an appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 52. Mr. Chitrajit Upadhyay, learned advocate for contesting respondents prays for stay of the present judgment and order for a period of four weeks so as to enable them to prefer an appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Though learned advocates for the petitioners object to the same, considering the fact that since 2nd September, 2020, they have been declared to be disqualified but they have still two and half years of their term in case challenge to the present judgment and order fails as on today, I deem it proper to grant four weeks time to the contesting respondents so as to enable them to challenge the present judgment and order before the appellate forum. Hence, this judgment and order is hereby stayed for a period of four weeks from today.