ORDER : R. NATARAJ, J. The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.MYSDC/ELN(2)/LB/30/2024(E-599169) dated 23.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 disqualifying them under the provisions of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection Act, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1987 for short). 2. (i) The petitioners are councillors elected to the Nanjangudu City Municipal Council and were sponsored by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The total strength of the Council is 31 and amongst them, 15 councillors belonged to the BJP, 10 to the Indian National Congress and 03 to the Janatha Dal (Secular) (JD(S)) and 03 were independents. The elections to the offices of President and Vice-President of the Municipal Council, Nanjungudu for the ensuing term were scheduled on 03.09.2024. The post of President was reserved for a candidate belonging to the 'Scheduled Caste', while the post of Vice-President was for 'General Woman' category. (ii) The State President of the BJP had addressed a letter dated 27.08.2024 to the District President of BJP directing him to issue a whip to all elected Councillors of the Nanjangudu Town Municipal Council belonging to BJP. Accordingly, a meeting of the BJP Councillors was convened at the party office at Nanjungudu on 29.08.2024, under the chairmanship of the District President. At the said meeting, it was resolved that the respondent No.2 would be the official candidate for the post of President and that Smt. Riyana Banu, (a Councillor of JD(S) aligned with the BJP), would be supported for the post of Vice-President. The said decision was purportedly arrived at in view of a coalition between JD(S) and the BJP at the State and National Level. At the said meeting, the petitioners were absent, due to "personal and unavoidable reasons". (iii) Pursuant to the said resolution, the District President of the BJP issued a whip to all BJP Councillors and in cases where the Councillor was not available, the whip was affixed on the outer door of his or her residence. It is stated that, in the meanwhile the Vice-Presidential candidate - Smt. Riyana Banu had switched over to the Indian National Congress. Consequently, Smt. Manjula a councillor belonging to the BJP was nominated as the candidate for the post of Vice- President. The petitioners did not attend the election due to, "unavoidable reasons". It is stated that, in the meanwhile the Vice-Presidential candidate - Smt. Riyana Banu had switched over to the Indian National Congress. Consequently, Smt. Manjula a councillor belonging to the BJP was nominated as the candidate for the post of Vice- President. The petitioners did not attend the election due to, "unavoidable reasons". As a result, the candidate of the Indian National Congress was elected as President and Smt. Riyana Banu was elected as the Vice-President. 3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 therefore alleged that the petitioners had defected and thereby incurred disqualification under the Act, 1987 and hence filed a petition before the respondent No.1. The petitioners objected to the petition, following which, proceedings were held before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 after being satisfied that the petitioners had defected passed an order disqualifying the petitioners and debarring them from contesting elections in terms of the impugned order. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, are before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions: (i) That the petitioners were not informed about the meeting of the councillors scheduled on 29.08.2024 and therefore the petitioners cannot be accused of deliberately avoiding the said meeting. (ii) That the petitioners were not in station owing to unavoidable reasons and that they had intimated the concerned about they would not be attending the meeting scheduled on 29-08-2024. (iii) That the notice of the whip was not served on the petitioners and that the alleged affixture of the whip on the outer door of their respective residences does not constitute proper or valid service, as the whip should be personally served on the petitioners. (iv) That the State Government has not framed Rules under the Act, 1987, prescribing the mode of service of a whip. Therefore, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.104407/2021 laid down a procedure for service of the notice of whip. He contends that the said order was not challenged by the State Government and therefore binds the respondents. He contends that the Co-ordinate Bench held in more or less similar circumstances, that mere affixture of the notice of the whip is not sufficient and that there must be proper and effective communication of the whip to all councillors. He contends that the said order was not challenged by the State Government and therefore binds the respondents. He contends that the Co-ordinate Bench held in more or less similar circumstances, that mere affixture of the notice of the whip is not sufficient and that there must be proper and effective communication of the whip to all councillors. (v) That even the BJP itself was not sure, regarding its nominees, in as much as the, the Vice-Presidential candidate - Smt. Riyana Banu had switched over to the Indian National Congress. He therefore submits that assuming without admitting that the whip is deemed to have been served by affixture, the same could not have been given effect to, since the Vice-Presidential candidate was changed at the last moment and no whip was issued directing the councillors to vote in favour of the newly nominated Vice -Presidential candidate. He therefore submits that the whip was unenforceable and consequently the petitioners could not have been accused of defection. Hence, the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1987 was not maintainable. (vi) That the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had rushed to the respondent No.1 even before the petitioners could have approached BJP with a request to condone their default in not voting. This, he submits was very premature and the respondent No.1 should not have entertained it. (vii) That the respondent No.1 did not conduct even a summary enquiry but the impugned order was based on the documents filed. He submits that the least the respondent No.1 should have done was to record the evidence of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 about the manner of service of the whip on the petitioners. He contends that the respondent No.1 did not comply with the basic principles of natural justice in as much as sufficient opportunity was not provided to the petitioners to canvass their case. 6. (i) Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that though no Rules are framed under the Act, 1987, prescribing the procedure for service of a whip, it is nevertheless incumbent on respondent Nos.2 and 3 to justify that the whip was duly served. He submits that in the instant case, the petitioners have not disputed that the notice of the whip was affixed on the outer door of their residences. He submits that in the instant case, the petitioners have not disputed that the notice of the whip was affixed on the outer door of their residences. (ii) He contends that when 11 other Councillors of the BJP had acted in terms of the whip, it is improbable and unnatural for the petitioners to claim that they were unaware of the whip. He further submits that the petitioners deliberately absented themselves from the meeting convened under the Chairmanship of the District President of BJP on 29.08.2024. He contends that though the petitioners claim that they were unable to attend the meeting due to unavoidable reasons, the said reasons are not disclosed and no material is produced to substantiate the intimation alleged to have been furnished to their political party. (iii) He contends that the notice of the whip was not only affixed on the outer door of the residences of the petitioners, but was also published in a newspaper and telecast widely in the media. He contends that the conduct of the petitioners, in not even consulting their co-councillors, reasonably indicates that the petitioners had deliberately abstained from attending the meeting on 29.08.2024 and had wilfully abstained from participating in the election held on 03.09.2024. (iv) He contends that the BJP did not condone the conduct of the petitioners, but instead expelled them from its primary membership of BJP. He therefore submits that all the ingredients necessary for disqualifying the petitioners under the Act, 1987 stood satisfied, and therefore the petitioners were rightly disqualified. 7. (i) The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners did not mention, in their objections filed before the respondent No.1, any reason for not attending the meeting on 29.08.2024, although they claimed that they were absent due to personal and unavoidable reasons. He contends that the election to the post of the President and Vice- President of the council is a crucial and significant stage in the functioning of a local body, and the petitioners could not have ignored or avoided participating therein. He submits that the date of election was notified well in advance and it is not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the election schedule. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the petitioners were bound to remain present on the date of the election. He submits that the date of election was notified well in advance and it is not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the election schedule. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the petitioners were bound to remain present on the date of the election. (ii) He further contends that the petitioners have not justified the reason for abstaining from the election, but have conveniently attempted to rely on the alleged non-service of the whip to explain their absence. He submits that the petitioners were fully aware of the strength of the BJP Councillors in the council and it was incumbent upon them to participate in the election process and support the official candidates of their political party. (iii) He submits that, in similar circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.22352/2021 held that the act of a Councillor tendering resignation when elections to the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha are imminent, would tantamount to voluntary relinquishing his membership of the political party. He submits that in the present case also, the conduct of the petitioners in abstaining from the election proceedings gives rise to a clear inference that they did so only to promote candidates belonging to the opposite camp, thereby voluntarily giving up their membership of the BJP. He submits that the order passed in W.P.No.22352/2021 was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.992/2022. Thus he submits that a parallel has to be drawn between the two cases and the order of disqualification of the petitioners should be upheld. The learned counsel has quoted extensively from the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu and others - 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 to contend that the purpose of anti-defection law is to curb political defection and maintain quality of the democratic electoral process. He therefore submits that the petitioners are rightly disqualified under the provisions of the Act, 1987. 8. During the course of hearing this petition, this Court felt that the evidence of the parties was not recorded and therefore passed the following order on 29-10-2025: After perusing the records of the respondent No.1, it is seen that the petitioner No.1 herein had adduced evidence before respondent No.1. It is seen that from 21.05.2025 till 20.06.2025, the respondent No.1 did not preside over the proceedings. It is seen that from 21.05.2025 till 20.06.2025, the respondent No.1 did not preside over the proceedings. On 23.06.2025, a request was made for adjournment and the case was listed on 02.07.2025. Again on 02.07.2025 an opportunity was granted and the case was posted on 09.07.2025. It is not known whether the case was adjourned from 02.07.2025 to 09.07.2025 to address arguments or to cross- examine the petitioners. On 09.07.2025, written arguments were submitted and the respondent No.1 posted the case for orders. It is therefore evident that the petitioner No.1 was not cross-examined. Since the impugned proceedings revolve around disqualification of the petitioners, the evidence of the petitioner No.1 had to be tested. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is directed to record the cross-examination of the petitioner No.1. In order to enable him to do so, the petitioner No.1 shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 05.11.2025 at 03.00 p.m. The respondent No.1 shall forward a record of the evidence by 10.11.2025. 9. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not appear before the respondent No.1 and failed to take advantage of the opportunity. Similarly, the petitioners did not lead any evidence before the respondent No.1 justifying their absence at the meeting on 29-08-2024 and on the date of the election i.e., 03- 09-2024. Therefore, this case would have to be dealt on the basis of the documents furnished before the respondent No.1, the circumstances of the case and for this purpose the entire record was procured from the respondent No.1. 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.2. I have perused the impugned order as well as the entire file leading up to the impugned order. 11. The facts that are not in dispute are that the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2 were elected as councillors of City Municipal Council, Nanjangud and were sponsored by the BJP. It is also not in dispute that the total strength of the Council is 31, of whom, 15 councillors belonged to BJP and 10 to the Indian National Congress and 03 to the JD(S) and 03 are independents. It is not in dispute that there was an understanding between the BJP and the JD(S) at both the State and the National levels. It is not in dispute that there was an understanding between the BJP and the JD(S) at both the State and the National levels. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.2 was nominated as the Official Candidate for the post of President and that one Smt. Riyana Banu belonging to the JD(S) was nominated as the candidate for the post of Vice-President. Ordinarily, if the BJP and JD(S) had issued a whip to its councillors to vote in favour of the respondent No.2, he would have secured 15 votes of BJP and 03 votes of JD(S) and would have emerged victorious. It is also not in dispute that the elections to the post of President and Vice-President of the Council were notified well in advance and therefore the petitioners cannot deny knowledge of the scheduled date of elections to the post of President and Vice-President of the Council. 12. It is not in dispute that a meeting of the Councillors was convened under the Chairmanship of the District President of BJP on 29.08.2024 which the petitioners admittedly did not attend. The petitioners claimed that they had intimated the office bearers of the political party, about their intended travel, but, no material in that regard was placed by the petitioners before the respondent No.1 or before this Court. It was decided at the meeting that a whip be issued to all the councillors of BJP to vote in favour of the nominated candidates. However, the Vice-Presidential candidate switched over to the Indian National Congress and the whip was subsequently modified, and instead of voting in favour of Smt. Riyana Banu, it was resolved to vote in favour of Smt. Manjula, a councillor of BJP for the post of Vice-President. 13. The 11 other councillors of BJP except the petitioners, were served with the whip. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, since they were incommunicado, a copy of the whip was affixed on the outer door of their respective residences. The petitioners do not deny the fact that the notice of the whip was affixed on the outer door of their respective residences. The petitioners heavily relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court referred supra, to contend that the whip was not duly served on them and that affixture is not a proper mode of service. The petitioners do not deny the fact that the notice of the whip was affixed on the outer door of their respective residences. The petitioners heavily relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court referred supra, to contend that the whip was not duly served on them and that affixture is not a proper mode of service. They also contend that the office bearers of BJP failed to comply with the method of service of whip as mentioned in the above judgment and therefore there was no effective service of the whip. 14. The object of issuance of a whip is to ensure that the councillors belonging to a political party adhere to the direction of such party while participating in the electoral process, including for the election for the post of President and Vice-President of a local authority and to secure the victory of the candidate nominated by the party. The Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the constitutional validity of Schedule X to the Constitution of India held as follows: 43. Parliamentary democracy envisages that matters involving implementation of policies of the government should be discussed by the elected representatives of the people. Debate, discussion and persuasion are, therefore, the means and essence of the democratic process. During the debates the Members put forward different points of view. Members belonging to the same political party may also have, and may give expression to, differences of opinion on a matter. Not unoften the views expressed by the Members in the House have resulted in substantial modification, and even the withdrawal, of the proposals under consideration. Debate and expression of different points of view, thus, serve an essential and healthy purpose in the functioning of Parliamentary democracy. At times such an expression of views during the debate in the House may lead to voting or abstinence from voting in the House otherwise than on party lines. 44. But a political party functions on the strength of shared beliefs. Its own political stability and social utility depends on such shared beliefs and concerted action of its Members in furtherance of those commonly held principles. 44. But a political party functions on the strength of shared beliefs. Its own political stability and social utility depends on such shared beliefs and concerted action of its Members in furtherance of those commonly held principles. Any freedom of its Members to vote as they please independently of the political party's declared policies will not only embarrass its public image and popularity but also undermine public confidence in it which, in the ultimate analysis, is its source of sustenance — nay, indeed, its very survival. Intra-party debates are of course a different thing. But a public image of disparate stands by Members of the same political party is not looked upon, in political tradition, as a desirable state of things. Griffith and Ryle on Parliament Functions, Practice and Procedure (1989 edn., p. 119) say: “Loyalty to party is the norm, being based on shared beliefs. A divided party is looked on with suspicion by the electorate. It is natural for Members to accept the opinion of their Leaders and Spokesmen on the wide variety of matters on which those Members have no specialist knowledge. Generally Members will accept majority decisions in the party even when they disagree. It is understandable therefore that a Member who rejects the party whip even on a single occasion will attract attention and more criticism than sympathy. To abstain from voting when required by party to vote is to suggest a degree of unreliability. To vote against party is disloyalty. To join with others in abstention or voting with the other side smacks of conspiracy.” (emphasis supplied) Clause (b) of sub-para (1) of Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule gives effect to this principle and sentiment by imposing a disqualification on a Member who votes or abstains from voting contrary to “any directions” issued by the political party. The provision, however, recognises two exceptions: one when the Member obtains from the political party prior permission to vote or abstain from voting and the other when the Member has voted without obtaining such permission but his action has been condoned by the political party. This provision itself accommodates the possibility that there may be occasions when a Member may vote or abstain from voting contrary to the direction of the party to which he belongs. This provision itself accommodates the possibility that there may be occasions when a Member may vote or abstain from voting contrary to the direction of the party to which he belongs. This, in itself again, may provide a clue to the proper understanding and construction of the expression “any direction” in clause (b) of Paragraph 2(1) — whether really all directions or whips from the party entail the statutory consequences or whether having regard to the extraordinary nature and sweep of the power and the very serious consequences that flow including the extreme penalty of disqualification the expression should be given a meaning confining its operation to the contexts indicated by the objects and purposes of the Tenth Schedule. We shall deal with this aspect separately. 45. The working of the modern Parliamentary democracy is complex. The area of the inter se relationship between the electoral constituencies and their elected representatives has many complex features and overtones. The citizen as the electorate is said to be the political sovereign. As long as regular general elections occur, the electorate remains the arbiter of the ultimate composition of the representative legislative body to which the government of the day is responsible. There are, of course, larger issues of theoretical and philosophical objections to the legitimacy of a representative government which might achieve a majority of the seats but obtains only minority of the electoral votes. It is said that even in England this has been the phenomenon in every general election in this century except the four in the years1900, 1918, 1931 and 1935. 46. But in the area of the inter-relationship between the constituency and its elected representative, it is the avowed endeavour of the latter to requite the expectations of his voters. Occasionally, this might conflict with his political obligations to the political party sponsoring him which expects — and exacts in its own way — loyalty to it. This duality of capacity and functions are referred to by two learned authors thus: “The functions of Members are of two kinds and flow from the working of representative government. Occasionally, this might conflict with his political obligations to the political party sponsoring him which expects — and exacts in its own way — loyalty to it. This duality of capacity and functions are referred to by two learned authors thus: “The functions of Members are of two kinds and flow from the working of representative government. When a voter at a general election, in that hiatus between parliaments, puts his cross against the name of the candidate he is [most often] consciously performing two functions: seeking to return a particular person to the House of Commons as Member for that constituency; and seeking to return to power as the government of the country a group of individuals of the same party as that particular person. The voter votes for a representative and for a government. He may know that the candidate he votes has little chance of being elected …. When a candidate is elected as a Member of the House of Commons, he reflects those two functions of the voter. Whatever other part he may play, he will be a constituency M.P. As such, his job will be to help his constituents as individuals in their dealings with the departments of State. He must listen to their grievances and often seek to persuade those in authority to provide remedies. He must have no regard to the political leanings of his constituents for he represents those who voted against him or who did not vote at all as much as those who voted for him. Even if he strongly disagrees with their complaint he may still seek to represent it, though the degree of enthusiasm with which he does so is likely to be less great.” So far as his own personal views on freedom of conscience are concerned, there may be exceptional occasions when the elected representative finds himself compelled to consider more closely how he should act. Referring to these dilemmas the authors say: “… The first is that he may feel that the policy of his party whether it is in office or in opposition, on a particular matter is not one of which he approves. He may think this because of his personal opinions or because of its special consequences for his constituents or outside interests or because it reflects a general position within the party with he cannot agree. He may think this because of his personal opinions or because of its special consequences for his constituents or outside interests or because it reflects a general position within the party with he cannot agree. On many occasions, he may support the party despite his disapproval. But occasionally the strength of his feeling will be such that he is obliged to express his opposition either by speaking or by abstaining on a vote or even by voting with the other side. Such opposition will not pass unnoticed and, unless the matter is clearly one of conscience, he will not be popular with the party whips. The second complication is caused by a special aspect of parliamentary conduct which not frequently transcends party lines. Members, who are neither Ministers nor front-bench Opposition spokesmen, do regard as an important part of their function the general scrutiny of governmental activity. This is particularly the role of select committees which have, as we shall see, gained new prominence since 1979. No doubt, it is superficially paradoxical to see Members on the government side of the House joining in detailed criticism of the administration and yet voting to maintain that government in office. But as one prominent critic of government has said, there is nothing inherently contradictory in a Member sustaining the executive in its power or helping it to overcome opposition at the same time as scrutinising the work of the executive in order both to improve it and to see that power is being exercised in a proper and legitimate fashion.” 15. The petitioners who admittedly had knowledge of the date of election to the post of President and Vice-President could not have missing as they left no information about their whereabouts nor were they justified in absenting from attending a crucial meeting convened on 29.08.2024. Assuming that they had some genuine reason for not attending the meeting on 29.08.2024, no force on earth could have stopped them from getting information about the proceedings of the said meeting. They also did not participate in the election process on the scheduled date and abstained from castingtheir votes, thereby allowing the candidate of the Indian National Congress to be declared as a returned candidate. The petitioners were soon thereafter removed from the primary membership of the party. They also did not participate in the election process on the scheduled date and abstained from castingtheir votes, thereby allowing the candidate of the Indian National Congress to be declared as a returned candidate. The petitioners were soon thereafter removed from the primary membership of the party. Hence the question of the petitioners making a request with the political party to condone their lapse did not arise. 16. The mischief that the Act, 1987 intends to curb is the menace of defection. The word 'defection' is defined in Section 3(1)(b) of Act, 1987 which is as follows: "Section 3(1)(b): If he votes or abstains from voting in, or intentionally remains absent from any meeting of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat, or Taluk Panchayat, contrary to any direction issued by the political party, to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf without obtaining the prior permission of such party, person, or authority, and such voting, abstention or absence has not been condoned by such political party, person, or authority within fifteen days from the date of voting or such abstention or absence." 17. A plain reading of the above shows that even abstention from voting amounts to defection unless it is with prior permission of the party or is condoned by the party within 15 days. An elected councillor may indulge in novel ways to avoid incurring the wrath of disqualification under the Act, 1987 but the long arm of law is bound to catch up and bring such action within the fold of law to achieve the purpose of the legislation and maintain purity in politics and the trust reposed in them by the electorate. It is activities of this type that the Act, 1987 intends to curb, and, in the present case, the act of defection is more than evident and is apparent from the material on record. 18. As regards the claim that the principles of natural justice was not complied, a perusal of the file does not disclose so but speaks the contrary. The petitioners were given opportunity to file their objections. The respondent No.2 produced documents in support of their allegation and the petitioners did not propose to cross-examine them. The petitioners also did not offer evidence in support of their defence. The petitioners were given opportunity to file their objections. The respondent No.2 produced documents in support of their allegation and the petitioners did not propose to cross-examine them. The petitioners also did not offer evidence in support of their defence. When the facts were evident from the record and the affixture of notice of whip is not in dispute, there was no need for an enquiry. Therefore there was no error in the respondent No.1 in deciding the petition based on the available material. 19. In so far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, where it was held that service of a whip by affixture is not a proper mode of service, the same cannot be applied as a straightjacket. In the instant case, the petitioners, who were aware of the affixture of the notice of whip had due knowledge of the directions issued by the political party and therefore, they cannot avoid the consequences of disobeying the whip. Therefore the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not merit consideration. 20. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 21. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications if any do no survive for consideration and the same stand rejected.