JUDGMENT : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. These eight appeals have been preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in four Special Civil Applications bearing Nos.11319, 11176, 11256 and 11266 of 2020 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed all the four petitions and quashed the order of the Designated Authority dated 02.09.2020 whereby the original writ petitioners had been disqualified as members of the Dakor Nagarpalika. 2. Facts in short are that in the 2018 election of the members/councillors of the Nagarpalika, Dakor comprising of 28 seats, 17 elected candidates had contested as independent candidates whereas 11 elected members/councillors had contested as official candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The agenda for election for the posts of President and Vice President was declared on 18.02.2018 and 03.03.2018 was fixed as the date for election in which these 28 elected members/councillors were to cast their votes. The Bharatiya Janata Party nominated Rajeshbhai Mohanbhai Patel as its candidate for the post of President and Jyotsnaben Ajaykumar Patel as its candidate for the post of Vice President. It is also admitted that the State President of Bharatiya Janata Party, Gujarat Unit, in its communication dated 02.03.2018 clearly mentioned the names of the nominated candidates for the posts of President and Vice President on behalf of the Party and accordingly issued a whip/mandate that all members/councillors should vote for them. The said authorization letter was addressed to the General Secretary of the Kheda District Unit of Bharatiya Janata Party, who in turn communicated the same to all the 11 members of the Nagarpalika who had been elected as official candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party. 3. However, in the election which was held on 03.03.2018 for the posts of President and Vice President, 7 members/councillors elected as official candidates of the Bharatiya Janata Party did not follow the mandate rather violated it and instead voted for an independent candidate who had been set up by none other than one of the 7 defecting elected councillors. On account of the said conduct which amounted to violating the whip/mandate and as a consequence defection from the party, 4 remaining BJP sponsored elected candidates moved the petition before the Designated Authority to declare these 7 members as disqualified. On account of the said conduct which amounted to violating the whip/mandate and as a consequence defection from the party, 4 remaining BJP sponsored elected candidates moved the petition before the Designated Authority to declare these 7 members as disqualified. The Designated Authority took cognizance, issued notices and after considering the rival submissions, vide order dated 02.09.2020 declared these 7 elected councillors as disqualified. Aggrieved by the same, the 7 disqualified councillors filed 4 separate petitions referred to above, which were clubbed together. Vide judgment dated 06.11.2020 the learned Single Judge allowed all the 4 petitions and quashed the order of the Designated Authority dated 02.09.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the present 8 appeals had been preferred. 3.1 Four appeals bearing Letters Patent Appeal Nos.917, 918, 919 and 933 of 2020 have been preferred by one of the complainants before the Designated Authority challenging the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the four writ petitions and quashing the order of the Designated Authority. The other four appeals bearing Letters Patent Appeal Nos.958, 959, 960 and 961 of 2020 have also been preferred by one of the four complainants challenging the very same order of the learned Single Judge passed in four separate petitions. It may be noticed that in the second set of appeals filed by the very same person, different lawyers are representing the appellants in different appeals. 4. We have heard Shri Chitrajeet Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.917, 918, 919 and 933 of 2020, Shri P.S.Champaneri, learned counsel for Shri R.N.Kapadia, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.961 of 2020, Shri R.N.Kapadia, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.960 of 2020, Shri Siddharth Kheskani, learned counsel for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.958 and 959 of 2020, Shri R.J.Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in all the appeals and Shri Dharmesh Devnani, learned AGP for the State respondents in all the appeals. 4.1 During the course of arguments although the appellants in both the set of appeals were the complainants before the Designated Authority, Shri Champaneri and Shri Kapadia have sought to support the reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge but have tried to argue that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge was not correct. 4.1 During the course of arguments although the appellants in both the set of appeals were the complainants before the Designated Authority, Shri Champaneri and Shri Kapadia have sought to support the reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge but have tried to argue that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge was not correct. Although we have heard all the learned counsels but we find some collusion at the stage by the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.958 to 961 of 2020. The filing of the four appeals bearing Letters Patent Appeal Nos.958 to 961 of 2020 appears to be a sponsored litigation or may be luxury litigation for no good ground. 5. Before the learned Single Judge, the disqualified 7 members, the original writ petitioners had raised several grounds to attack the order of the Designated Authority. The learned Single Judge rejected all but one of the grounds raised by the original writ petitioners. The only ground which appealed to the learned Single Judge which resulted into the petitions being allowed was that the leader of the Municipal Party had not registered its rules and that there was no material on record to establish that the State President was authorized to issue the whip and further, whether he had the authority to further delegate his powers to the General Secretary of the District BJP Unit, to issue the whip. 6. Shri Chitrajeet Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant in four of the appeals submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the only issue which found favour was also contrary to law and unsustainable and hence, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge proceeding on a wrong premise and referring to submissions which had neither been raised before the Designated Authority nor were disputed before the Designated Authority, committed a serious error in allowing the writ petitions. 7. The submissions of Shri Upadhyaya is to the effect that the issuance of the whip was never disputed by the disqualified members i.e. the original writ petitioners before the Designated Authority. Once the issuance of the whip itself was not under dispute and not challenged before the Designated Authority, the learned Single Judge who was testing the order of the Designated Authority ought not to have entered into that question. 8. Once the issuance of the whip itself was not under dispute and not challenged before the Designated Authority, the learned Single Judge who was testing the order of the Designated Authority ought not to have entered into that question. 8. It is next submitted by Shri Upadhyaya that the registration of the rules and the Authorized Officer by the leader of the Municipal Party was only requirement under the rules but it was neither mandatory nor compulsory, it was only directory. His submission is that even if there was non-Page compliance of Rule 3(b) of the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members of Local Authorities for Defection Rules, 1987 (referred to as “the Rules” for short), it would not defeat the very object and principle underlying disqualification on the ground of defection. 9. Shri Upadhyaya has drawn our attention to the mandate issued by the State President of BJP, Gujarat Unit, the further communication by the General Secretary of the BJP, District Unit, Kheda, the written statement/objections filed by the original writ petitioners before the Designated Authority as also the written submissions before the Designated Authority to show that they had never ever disputed the issuance of the whip or that they had no knowledge of the whip issued by the Party. 10. Shri Upadhyaya also submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the two judgments in the case of Katara Bhaveshbhai Babubhai (supra) as also Diptiben Vinubhai Patel (supra) as the facts of the said two cases were quite different from the present case and had no application in the present case. They could not extend any benefit to the writ petitioners. 11. On the above submissions, Shri Upadhyaya submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, it deserves to be set aside, the appeals be allowed and the order of the Designated Authority dated 02.09.2020 be maintained. Further, in support of his submissions on the above aspects, Shri Upadhyaya has placed reliance upon the following two judgments which we will deal with at the appropriate place : (1) Pragneshkumar Jayantilal Soni Vs. Pankajkumar Mangaldas Patel, reported at 2020 (3) GLR 2080 . (2) Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vs. Chairman and Ors., reported at (2004) 8 SCC 747 . 12. Pankajkumar Mangaldas Patel, reported at 2020 (3) GLR 2080 . (2) Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vs. Chairman and Ors., reported at (2004) 8 SCC 747 . 12. On the other hand, Shri R.J.Goswami, learned counsel for the original writ petitioners-respondents in the appeals submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in the appeals. The facts as recorded by the learned Single Judge are not disputed, that there was no material on record to show that who was the person authorized on behalf of the Party to issue the whip, that the rules had not been notified by the Leader of the Municipal Party providing such details and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petitions. It is also submitted that the Party itself nominated one of the 7 defected councillors as its candidate for the election of the second term of the office bearers in September, 2020 and further that in the end of March, 2018, the whip issued by the Party with regard to the meeting of the budget having been honoured and respected by the defectors, any defection by them stood condoned and waived. It is also submitted that the Party having only issued show cause notices and having suspended the members but not having dismissed them from the primary membership of the Party, all the 7 defectors still continue to be members of Bharatiya Janata Party. On such submissions, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that the appeals being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed. 13. The other learned counsels appearing for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.958 to 961 of 2020, namely, Shri P.S.Champaneri, Shri R.N.Kapadia and Shri Siddharth Kheskani have in effect supported Shri Upadhyaya’s submissions. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. The first submission advanced by Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellants is to the effect that the sole point on which the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the petition was neither raised before the Designated Authority either in the objections filed before it or in the written arguments submitted by the writ petitioners before the Designated Authority. The first submission advanced by Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellants is to the effect that the sole point on which the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the petition was neither raised before the Designated Authority either in the objections filed before it or in the written arguments submitted by the writ petitioners before the Designated Authority. In the absence of any foundation to that effect the Designated Authority rightly so did not look into the issue as to whether the whip had been issued by the competent Authorized Officer of the party. As a matter of fact, the original writ petitioners had admitted of having received the whip before the voting took place. It was State President of the party who had issued the whip and had forwarded it to the District President, District Kheda for communicating it to the councilors. The State President had not delegated any of his powers to the District President for issuing the whip. It was not that the District President of Kheda unit had issued the whip. He had only communicated the whip issued by the State President. It was a wrong premise raised before the learned Single Judge that the District President had issued the whip upon a delegation which was not permissible. This fact is factually incorrect. 15. The contentions with regards to Rule 3(1) was neither raised before the designated authority nor before the learned single Judge by the appellants. The term “leader of the municipal party” and the term “leader of the political party” have been mixedup and misconstrued for the purpose of providing the aforesaid reasoning and rational by the learned single Judge. As per Rule 3(1), non-providing of information by the leader of the municipal party cannot be construed to be fatal so as to come to the conclusion that the whip was not a valid whip. It is not mandatory for the designated officer nor does the said Rule bar the designated officer from exercising any jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Moreover, the designated officer has rightly considered the material on record and the submissions and pleadings of both the parties and after considering the same has given a proper reasoning and finding to come to the conclusion that the whip issued by the political party was a valid whip and the same was defied. Moreover, the designated officer has rightly considered the material on record and the submissions and pleadings of both the parties and after considering the same has given a proper reasoning and finding to come to the conclusion that the whip issued by the political party was a valid whip and the same was defied. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned single Judge is contrary to the provisions of law as well as the record and the pleadings of the case. The appeals are required to be allowed. 16. It is further to be noted that the respondents have themselves admitted on record that they had defied the whip and the said defiance is deemed to be condoned by the party considering the fact that no formal order of suspension has been passed by the political party. This is a clear admission on the part of the respondents as to defiance of whip and it is sufficient evidence to invoke the provisions of Section 3(1)(B) of the Act and therefore also the order of the Designated Authority does not suffer from any infirmity. No interference was called for in the order of the Designated Authority. 17. The only defence which has been raised by the respondents from very beginning is with regards to the service of whip. Considering the provisions of Rule 10 and the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Pragneshkumar Jayantilal Soni (supra), it is incumbent upon the councilors to verify whether a valid whip has been issued by the political party or not and if such a whip has been issued it is incumbent upon the members to obtain the copy of such a whip. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been specifically mentioned that the first part of Rule 10(A) is mandatory and the second part of Rule 10(A) is directory. The learned single Judge although accepted the said contention but merely relying upon the provisions of Rule 3(1), the learned single Judge allowed the aforesaid petitions, which is contrary to the settled legal principles. 18. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra), more particularly note A para 18 of the said judgment, it has been held that the Rules are not mandatory but directory. 18. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra), more particularly note A para 18 of the said judgment, it has been held that the Rules are not mandatory but directory. It is further submitted that in light of the aforesaid judgment in case of Pragneshkumar Jayantilal (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held that only the first part of Rule 10(A) is mandatory and all other Rules are directory in nature and therefore also noncompliance of Rule 3(1) by the leader of the municipal party cannot be fatal for the purpose of arriving at a decision that the order passed by the designated authority is not in accordance with law. 19. The ‘leader of the political party’ is altogether a different entity as compared to the term ‘leader of the municipal party’. Rule 3(1) has been prescribed by the legislature with a view to deal with a situation wherein there is collusion or wherein other members who are independent candidates who have supported a particular political party. Therefore, non-providing of information at the behest of the leader of the municipal party cannot be construed to be mandatory in nature and therefore the finding given by learned single Judge is not correct. 20. The learned single Judge has also erred in observing that there is no authority vested with the State President nor District General Secretary because the constitution of the national political party has not been produced on record. It is pertinent to note that it can safely be assumed that the respondents who claimed to be members of the Bhartiya Janta Party are expected to be well informed about the authority of the State President under the constitution of a nationalized party. Over and above, the respondents have never raised that contention before the designated authority nor the same has raised the said contention before the learned single Judge in the petitions preferred. It is pertinent to note that party president at the State level is the authorized person under the constitution of the political party and an affirmative finding has been given by the designated officer on this count. In absence of information under Rule 3(1), the authority of the State President cannot be doubted by the learned single Judge when defiance has been admitted by the respondents on record. 21. In absence of information under Rule 3(1), the authority of the State President cannot be doubted by the learned single Judge when defiance has been admitted by the respondents on record. 21. The reasoning given by the learned single Judge after relying upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Katara Bhaveshbhai Babubhai vs. Designated Authority under the Gujarat Provision for Disqualification of Members and others, reported in 2012 (5) GLR 4503 as well as Diptiben Vinubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.7910 of 2020, dated 31.08.2020, is misplaced. In the case of Katara Bhaveshbhai Babubhai (supra), though the members acted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 and inquired about the valid mandate issued by the political party, the concerned office bearer deliberately did not serve the copy of the said whip though the members tried to obtain the copy of the whip. Under those circumstances, the aforesaid decision has been passed. On facts it has no application to the present case. 22. In the case of Diptiben Vinubhai Patel (supra), this Court had given the finding to the effect that the State President did not have any power to issue whip because in the said matter the whip was issued by the State President of Indian National Congress Party, which operates through a completely different constitution and in the said party the State President is merely a representative of the State Committee and the President has to act in accordance with the resolutions passed by the State Committee. In the said case there was no such resolution passed by the State Committee authorizing the State President as indicated in their constitution and therefore under those circumstances such observations were made by the learned single Judge in the case of Diptiben Vinubhai Patel (supra) and therefore the same was not applicable to the present case on facts. 23. On all the above counts the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the Designated Authority cannot be sustained. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and that of the Designated Authority is maintained. Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed off.