Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Akula Ganga Raju And Anr. vs Presiding Officer, Yeleswaram Mandal ... on 14 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(5)ALD619, 2004(5)ALT563, 2003 A I H C 4379, (2003) 5 ANDHLD 619 (2004) 5 ANDH LT 563, (2004) 5 ANDH LT 563
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether respondents 2 to 5, who were elected as members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency in Yeleswaram Mandal have incurred disqualification under Section 153 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules contained in G.O. Ms. No. 756 dated 30-1-1994 as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 7-12-1994. This is the 2nd round of litigation on the issue.
2. A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to be enacted, as a sequel to the 73rd amendment to the Constitution of India in the year 1992. A three-tier system of the Panchayat Raj Institutions came to be introduced. At the bottom is the Village Gram Panchayat, at the middle is the Mandal Parishad and at the top is the Zilla Parishad, in the hierarchy. The Mandal Parishad comprises of territorial constituencies. From each territorial constituency, a member is to be elected and the members in turn are required to elect the President and Vice-President of the Mandal Parishad.
3. Elections for the purpose of electing 19 Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency Members (for short' the Members') for the Yelleswaram Mandal of East Godavari District, were held on 14-7-2001. The elections were held on party lines as contemplated under the relevant provisions. Out of 19 members, 12 were elected from the Congress Party and 7 from the Telugu Desam Party.
4. Elections for choosing the President of the Mandal Parishad were notified to be held on 22-7-2001. Rule 13(6) of the Rules provides for issuance of whip by the recognised political party. The 1st petitioner herein was named as the whip by the President of the District Congress Committee, East Godavari District, Kakinada, through its proceedings dated 21-7-2001. The 2nd petitioner was elected as Member of Yeleswaram Mandal and she was the candidate on behalf of the Congress Party for the Presidentship of Yeleswaram Mandal Praja Parishad. The 1st petitioner had submitted his authorisation as well as the contents of whip to the Election Officer, the 1st respondent herein, within the stipulated time under the Rules. On the ground that 8 members elected from the Congress Party have received the copies of the whip and respondents 2 to 5 have refused to receive the same, the 1st petitioner sought permission of the 1st respondent to serve copies of the whip on respondents 2 to 5, when the meeting was convened on 22-7-2001 at about 1-00 p.m. Permission was accorded. However, they refused to receive the written form of the whip.
5. In the ultimate election, the candidate i.e., the 2nd petitioner sponsored by the Congress Party was defeated. Alleging that respondents 2 to 5 have disobeyed the whip, the 1st petitioner submitted a complaint on the same day, before the 1st respondent. Acting on the complaint, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 25-7-2001, holding that respondents 2 to 5 have ceased to be the members for violating the whip issued by the 1st petitioner herein.
6. Respondents 2 to 5 filed WP No. 11567, 11568, 11569 and 15645 of 2001 in this Court, challenging the orders of the 1st respondent dated 25-7-2001. The writ petitions were allowed on 19-9-2001 on the sole ground that respondents 2 to 5 herein were not issued notices before they were disqualified. Liberty was given to the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings after issuing notices to them.
7. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 15-10-2001 to respondents 2 to 5 directing them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, for violating the whip issued on behalf of the Congress Party. They submitted their explanations on 17-10-2001. The 1st respondent, who is also impleaded as respondent No. 6 eonomine, took the view that according to the Circular dated 19-7-2001 issued by the State Election Commissioner, the political party has to furnish copy of the whip to all its members, duly getting acknowledgment and since the same was not complied with, the complaint of the petitioners is devoid of merits. The petitioners challenge the said proceedings in this writ petition.
8. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent are without any basis and they demonstrate a deliberate misinterpretation of the provisions and non-application of mind. According to him, neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate service of the whip on the members in any particular manner. It is his case that respondents 2 to 5 have deliberately avoided receipt of the whip when sought to be served, both in person as well through registered post. He submits that the 1st petitioner had to issue telegrams to all of them and to be on safe side, the 1st petitioner obtained permission of the 1st respondent to serve the whip even before the meeting commenced. He avers that respondents 2 to 5 have flatly refused to receive the whips on the ground that they have resigned from the Congress Party and became independent members. Learned Counsel asserts that in the light of these undisputed and established facts, the 1st respondent has no alternative except to disqualify respondents 2 to 5.
9. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, supports the action of the 1st respondent. She submits that a whip can be said to have been violated, if only it was served on the member. According to her, as long as it is not established that the whip was served, an elected member cannot be disqualified.
10. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5, submits that there is nothing on record to disclose that the 1st petitioner had served the whip on respondents 2 to 5. He contends that the whip, to be effective needs to be communicated and conveyed to the members. He places reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Madhava Rao Desai v. Union of India, .
11. The Act provides for a three-tier structure of Panchayat Raj Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This writ petition is concerned with the institution occurring in the middle of the order, viz., Mandal Parishad. The election to the 'Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies are direct. The voters in each territorial constituency elect a member. The elections are permitted to be contested on party lines. The members so elected shall elect the President and the Vice-President of the Mandal Parishad. The procedure for election of President and Vice-President is prescribed in Section 153 of the Act. Further details of this procedure are provided for under the A.P. Conduct of Election of Member (Co-opted) and President/Vice-President of Mandal Parishad and Member (Co-opted) and Chairman/Vice-Chairman of Zilla Parishad Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
12. Inasmuch the elections are held on party lines, obviously deriving inspiration from, and to maintain the spirit underlying Schedule X of the Constitution of India, certain measures are incorporated under the Act and the Rules, to ensure that the voting pattern for the election of members is reflected in the election of President and Vice-President of the Mandal Parishad also. The purpose is to discourage horse-trading. The consequences of violating the whip issued by the party are provided for under 2nd proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 153 of the Act and Rule 13(7) of the Rules. The said provisions read as under:
"153. Election, reservation and term of office of President and Vice-President:--(1) For every Mandal Parishad there shall be one President and one Vice-President who shall be elected by and from among the elected members specified in Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 149 by show of hands duly obeying the party whip given by such functionary of the recognised political party as may be prescribed, in the prescribed manner. If at an election held for the purpose no President or Vice-President is elected, fresh election shall be held. The names of (he President and the Vice-President so elected shall be published in the prescribed manner.
.................
Provided further that a member voting under this sub-section in disobedience of the party whip shall cease to hold office forthwith and the vacancy caused by such cessation shall be filled as a casual vacancy."
"Rule 13(7)(i) Any member of the Mandal Parishad elected on behalf of a recognised political party shall cease to be a Member of the Mandal Parishad for disobeying the directions of the Party Whip so issued.
(ii) The Presiding Officer shall, on receipt of a written report from the Party Whip within three days of the election, that a Member belonging to his party has disobeyed the Whip issued in connection with the election, forthwith declare in Form V-C that the Member has ceased to hold Office and the decision of the Presiding Officer shall be final"
Thus, a member who violates or disobeys the party whip incurs disqualification. Once the Presiding Officer finds that a member elected from a political party has disobeyed the whip, he is required to declare such member as having incurred disqualification and ceased to be a member through a communication in Form No. V-C.
13. The 1st petitioner came to be appointed as a whip for election of President to the Yeleswaram Mandal Parishad. Rule 13(6) of the Rules requires intimation as to appointment of an individual as whip and the content of the whip to be delivered to the Presiding Officer on or before 11-00 a.m., on the day, preceding the date on which elections are scheduled to be held. It has come on record that the intimation of appointment of the 1st petitioner as whip, and the whip as such were, delivered by the 1st petitioner to the 1st respondent at 10-30 a.m., on 21-7-2001.
The whip was to the effect that-
(a) Sri Shaik Khader Vali be co-opted as member for the Mandal;
(b) Smt. Pattiwada Haripriya (2nd petitioner) be elected as the President; and
(c) Shri Thammayya Babu be elected as Vice-President for the Mandal."
The 1st petitioner contended that he could serve the whip on 8 members, but respondents 2 to 5 refused to receive the same. In Para 6 of the affidavit, it is stated as under:
"I submit that I tried to serve a copy of the whip on respondents 2 to 5 personally in the forenoon of 21-7-2001 and on their refusal to receive the same I issued Telegrams to respondents 2 to 5. I also issued telegrams to the 1st respondent as a measure of abundant caution informing him about the issuance of whip directing the M.P.T.C. Members of Congress party to vote in favour of the candidates being set up on behalf of the party. The Telegrams sent to Mr. Bhupathi Appanna and Smt. Pandranki Parvatho who are respondents 2 and 4 herein, as per the endorsement of the Superintendent Incharge C.T.O. Kakinada B.S.N.L could not be delivered to them as they were not available and "others refused". Insofar as the other 2 respondents are concerned the Telegrams were received and they are aware of the contents of the same. As a measure of abundant caution I went to the house of respondents 2 to 5 in the evening of 21-7-2001 and pasted a copy of the whip on the main door/walls of the respondents 2 to 5 in the presence of the elders of the village."
It was in this background that the meeting for electing the President and the Vice-President came to be convened. The 1st petitioner obtained permission of the 1st respondent to serve the whip on respondents 2 to 5 before the elections were taken up. Permission was accorded to him and he tried to serve the whip on respondents 2 to 5. They have refused to receive the same. Thereupon he read out the whip in the meeting before the elections commenced. The pleading in this regard is to the following effect:
"With the permission of the 1st respondent I tried to serve copies of the whip just before the commencement of Meeting for electing office bearers at 1-00 p.m. However, respondents 2 to 5 refused to receive the same and the same was witnessed by the 1st respondent, who I also understand has recorded in the minutes book. Thereafter he permitted me to read out the contents of the whip over public address system so as to enable all the members who are assembled to know about the issuance and contents of the whip. I read out the whip and asked all the members of the Congress Party to vote for the official party nominee the 2nd petitioner herein for the President, Sri Thammaiah Babu for Vice-President and Mr.Shaik Khader Wali for Co-opted Membership."
During the election, it emerged that respondents 2 to 5 have defied the whip. Thereupon the 1st petitioner submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent alleging violation of whip by respondents 2 to 5.
14. The 1st respondent acted upon the same and issued proceedings dated 25-7-2001. He has narrated the facts in detail. He has referred to the factum of grant of permission to the 1st petitioner to serve the whip on respondents 2 to 5 and their refusal to receive the same. The fact that respondents 2 to 5 have also defied the whip was also referred to therein. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"At 1-00 p.m, on 22-7-2001, the 19 M.P.T.Cs elected to Yeleswaram Mandal Parishad assembled at Meeting Hall in MPDO Office, Yeleswaram for special meeting convened to elect Member (Co-opted), President and Vice-President for Yeleswarom Mandal Parishad. Sri Akula Ganga Raju, Party whip of Congress has taken permission from the Presiding Officer to serve Congress Party Whip to the following four MPTCs elected on Congress Ticket. Since, they were not available to him earlier.
Sl.No. Name of the MPTC Member Segment No. 1. Smt.Pandranki Parvathi Yeleswaram (8) 2. Smt.Kakarapalli Tulasiveni J.Annavaram (2) 3. Smt.Bhupathi Appanna Yeleswaram (8) 4. Smt.Vonum Manga Siripuram (18)
The above 4 M.P.T.Cs refused to receive the party Whip letter from Sri Akula Ganga Raju, Congress Party Whip.
During the process of election of Member (Co-opted), President and Vice-President to Yeleswaram Mandal Parishad, it was observed that the above 4 M.P.T.Cs got elected on Congress party ticket with B Form issued, have voted against the Congress Party nominees and disobeyed the party whip."
It was in this context, that the 1st respondent declared that respondents 2 to 5 have incurred disqualification.
15. Respondents 2 to 5 filed Writ Petitions alleging that they were not put on notices before they were declared to have inclined disqualification. On that sole ground, the writ petitions were allowed and the 1st respondent was directed to proceed with the matter after issuing notices. In compliance with the order of this Court the 1st respondent issued show causes notices to respondents 2 to 5, directing them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified as having incurred disqualification, having ceased to be the members of the Mandal Parishad on account of their defiance of the whip issued by the political party, on behalf of which they were elected.
16. Respondents 2 to 5 submitted their explanations on 17-10-2001. The tenor of their explanations was common. They have pleaded two defences, viz., (a) that having been elected on 14-7-2001 as members on the ticket issued by the Congress Party; they have resigned to that party on 21-7-2001 and thereby became independent members;
and (b) that no whip was served on them. The 1st petitioner submitted representation to the 1st respondent to furnish him the copies of the explanations submitted by respondents 2 to 5. The 1st respondent acceded to that request.
17. After taking into account the complaint submitted by the petitioners, show cause notices issued to respondents 2 to 5 and the explanations submitted by them, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 4-11-2001. Having referred to the various developments that have taken place ever since the elections, the 1st respondent observed as under:
"A reading of the complaint reveals that the whip seems to have been issued while special meeting was going oa According to the Circular No. 853/SEC-81/2001-3 dated 19-7-2001 issued by the Election Commission containing the guidelines with regard to the procedure to be followed in holding the Special Meeting of Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad with regard to the issue of whip by political parties, instruction (e) contemplates that the political party has to furnish copy of the whip issued by him to the members of his party duly getting their acknowledgements in terms of Annexure-II to the Presiding Officer before 12 noon on the same day. But, this has not been complied with in the present case. Hence, the complaint is devoid of merits.
Even otherwise, no proof is forthcoming that the whip is served on the above 4 MPTC members before the schedule time. The complaint therefore, deserves no consideration.
Hence for the reasons enumerated above, the complaint is hereby rejected."
This order is impugned in this writ petition.
18. From a perusal of the findings recorded by the 1st respondent, it is evident that the factors that constituted the basis are; the non-compliance with instruction (e) of the Circular dated 19-7-2001 issued by the State Election Commissioner; and non-existence of proof of service of whip on respondents 2 to 5. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to-
(1) whether the State Election Commission issued any instructions in the matter of service of whip and, if so, the effect thereof; and (2) whether respondents 2 to 5 can be said to have been served with the whip.
19. The State Election Commission is not assigned any role in the matter of issue of whip for conducting elections. Its role is confined to the declaration of the programme for conducting the elections. The proceedings thereafter are completely in the realm of the Presiding Officer. Even otherwise, there is nothing in Circular dated 19-7-2001 to insist that the whip in writing form should have been delivered to the members belonging to the concerned political party. Para 3(e) of the instructions of the State Election Commission, which is relied upon by the 1st respondent in the impugned order, reads as under:
"3. Issue of whip by political parties:--
.................
(e) The whip so appointed by a recognised political party has to furnish a copy of the contents of the whip issued by him to the Presiding officer atlas one hour before the commencement of the special meeting i.e., by 12-00 Noon."
It is rather ununderstandable as to how this paragraph con be interpreted to mean that it insists upon the service of the written whip on the member. There cannot be any grater perversity of exercise of powers, distortion of record and misinterpretation of rules, than the one resorted to by the 1st respondent. It was for this reason the petitioners had impleaded the Presiding Officer eonomine as respondent No. 6. He has not chosen to respond, obviously because he cannot justify his atrocious interpretation of the Rule and the lame excuse pleaded by him to subvert the very mandate of the Rules.
20. As regards service of the whip: Rule 13(6) of the Rules dealing with the appointment of a whip and issue thereof mandates that the appointment as well as the content of the whip be delivered to the Presiding Officer by 11 -00 a.m., on the day preceding the election. The rule as such does not insist on service of whip on the members belonging to the respective political parties. At any rate, no particular form of communication of whip is prescribed by the Rules. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Madhava Rao Desai's case (supra) for instance of service of whip on members. Division Bench of this Court held that service of whip on the member concerned is necessary before expecting compliance with the same form him. In Para 22 of the judgment, it was observed as under:
"....the writ petitions are liable to be allowed as no materials have been brought on record to show that the petitioners are guilty of disobedience of the whip issued by the respective parties, wherefor it was necessary to arrive at a finding of the fact that such a whip had been issued and served upon them, but they had acted contrary to the whip. No finding of fact to the effect that in spite of a whip having been served on the petitioners they disobeyed the same and voted against the party candidate had been arrived at by the Presiding Officer. Unless such a finding of fact had been arrived at by the Presiding Officer, if necessary by examining the person who had issued the whip and the material connected therewith, the petitioners ought not to have been declared as disqualified to hold the office of member of Mandal Parishad."
The Legislature as well as the Rule Making Authority were obviously conscious of the fact that if compliance with the whip is to be dependent on service of the same in a particular form, the very object may be defeated, on account of deliberate refusal to receive the same. The observation of this Court in Madhava Rao Desai 's case (supra) has to be understood to the effect that the member should be aware of the whip before he is disqualified. The logical consequence of the same would be that a persistent and deliberate refusal by a member to receive the whip galvanize him from the consequences of defiance of the whip. It was in this context, that in a subsequent decision rendered by another Division Bench in S. Jyothi v. Presiding Officer, Thottambedu Mandal, , it was held as under:
"In this case also, firstly, admittedly no notice of intimation of appointment of the Whip was served on the writ petitions. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that before the commencement of the election on 28-7-2001, the petitioners were aware of the notice of the Whip published in the newspaper. Thirdly, there is nothing on record to show that the 2nd respondent attempted to serve notice on the petitioners and they refused to receive the same. It is trite, the burden of proof that the Whip was properly served on the petitioners and despite the service of the Whip, the petitioners disobeyed the Whip thereby incurring a liability to be disqualified from membership under Rule 13(7) of the President/Vice-President Election Rules is on the respondents."
In this case, extensive reference was made to Madhava Rao Desai's case.
21. From this, it is evident that a member can be disqualified for defiance of the whip, if it is established that
(a) he was served with the whip; or
(b) he was aware of the issuance of the whip; or
(c) there was an attempt by the party whip to serve the same, but he has refused to receive the same.
On the date of election i.e., on 22-7-2001, the 1st petitioner complained to the 1st respondent that respondents 2 to 5 were refusing to receive the whip. The 1st petitioner sought for permission of the 1st respondent to serve the same after the meeting was convened. The 1st respondent granted the permission. When the 1st petitioner tried to serve the whip on respondents 2 to 5, they have refused to receive the same. Having no alternative, with the permission of the 1st respondent, the 1st petitioner read over the whip before the election was taken up. These are matters borne out by record. The 1st respondent had referred to these facts in his proceedings dated 25-7-2001. The ultimate decision contained in these proceedings was set-aside on a technical ground. However, the facts, which are borne out by record, cannot be said to have been wiped out or erased. It is rather curious that the 1st respondent had turned a blind eye to these facts borne out by record. He has taken shelter under the instructions issued by the State Election Commission in the Circular dated 19-7-2001, which have absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
22. Out of the three modes of service of notice, as indicated by this Court in S.Jyothi's case (supra), it is evident that respondents 2 to 5 can be said to have been served with the notice, at least in 2 modes. It has come on record that the whip was read in the meeting before the election has taken place, thereby they had the knowledge of the whip as contemplated in Mode (b). It has also come on record that the 1st petitioner sought to serve before the commencement of the meeting with the permission of the 1st respondent. It is settled principle of law that refusal amounts to receipt of the notice. Hence there is service as contemplated in mode (c). Specific allegations made by the petitioners in this regard in the affidavit, are not denied by respondents 2 to 5 in the counter-affidavit.
Once it is established that the 1st petitioner was appointed as a whip, that he issued a direction in the form of whip in the matter of election of President/Vice-President and that respondents 2 to 5 have defied the same, Rule 13(7) operates.
23. Learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 submits that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity or irregularity, the only course open to the Court is to set aside the same and remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel could certainly have been accepted, if the impugned order is to be set-aside on technical grounds, such as, non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and further verification into facts and recording of finding is to be undertaken. A further instance is where the provision of law requires a semblance of adjudication into the matter. Such situations do not exist here.
24. Instances are not lacking where the Court itself had declared the consequences, provided for under statutes, if the undisputed facts warrant the same. It all depends upon the nature of power conferred on the authority concerned. Where the statute requires an adjudication into facts and the outcome of the proceedings depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the authority, Court cannot undertake such exercise. However, where the nature of power is purely declaratory in nature and the necessary facts constituting the basis for the declaration are before the Court, it is certainly open to the Court to grant the relief in the form of declaration.
25. A reading of Rule 13(7) of the Rules discloses that once it emerges that there was a whip as contemplated under Rule 13(6) and the members of a particular political party have defined the same, he has no alternative except to declare that such member ceased to hold the office. The provision does not speak of satisfaction of the Presiding Officer or examination of the matter or adjudication by him. The whole exercise is virtually objective, without leaving any scope for formation of opinion, once the basic facts emerge.
Once it emerges that:
(a) the political party had issued a whip;
(b) the members belonging to that political party had the knowledge of the whip, though express or constructive service of the same;
(c) the members have defied the whip in the election; and
(d) such members are put on notice as to why they should not be disqualified;
the declaration as regards their cessation is a matter of course. The above discussion clearly demonstrates that all the four ingredients are present vis-a-vis respondents 2 to 5.
26. It should not be forgotten that Section 153 of the Act and Rule 13(7) incorporate a noble object to preserve the very lifeline of democratic system. Once the elections are fought on party lines, the mandate given in such election is required to be reflected through out. There cannot be a greater cheating by an individual than defiance of a mandate of electorate. Such courses of action would remove the very element of principle from politics. If a member elected on the ticket issued by a particular political party finds it incompatible to subscribe to the ideology of the party, or to continue in that party, he can certainly walk out of it. However, before doing so, he is required to forego and relinquish whatever he has got from that party. Not long ago, Acharya Narendra Dev has set a glorious example. When he differred with the political party from which he was elected to the legislature, he resigned to the elected office. In the succeeding bye-elections, he contested with a different profile. His defeat in that election was proclaimed as more glorious than the success of the elected candidate. That was at a time when Schedule X was not inserted in the Constitution. Unfortunately, such noble principles are conveniently forgotten and selfish ends are put before all basic norms and principles.
27. The plea taken by respondents 2 to 5 was that they have resigned to the political party from which they have been elected. Such resignation was hardly before the indelible ink applied on the fingers of the voters or the voting mark on the ballot paper dried up. If greater wisdom had dawned upon them warranting resignation from the political party from which they were elected, it was equally incumbent upon them to resign the elected office itself. They have resorted to trading with the mandate they have received from the voters. It is on account of such nebulous acts, that one after the other institutions of democracy are loosing their significance. What is at stake is not the office held by respondents 2 to 5, but the very confidence of the people in the democratic system. Further, Rule 13(7) does not provide for exception for the cessation of membership on account of defiance of whip.
28. The way in which the 6th respondent, who discharged the functions of the Presiding Officer, has conducted himself is, rather despicable. Either wantonly or inadvertently, he has issued proceedings dated 25-7-2001, disqualifying respondents 2 to 5 without issuing notices to them. The order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication. It is true that he is at liberty to discuss the matter afresh and arrive at his own conclusions on the basis of the findings borne out by records. However, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of the orders of this Court and reduce the entire exercise to a futility. He has ignored the fact that the petitioner had sought to serve the written whip on respondents 2 to 5 with his permission and when they refused to receive the same, the whip was announced. In the impugned order, he has observed as though he was not aware of the effort of the 1st petitioner to serve the whip and refusal of respondents 2 to 6 to receive it. It was he who accorded the permission to the 1st petitioner to serve the whip on respondents 2 to 5 and on their refusal to receive it, to announce in the public address system. The fact is borne out by record. As long as that stands, having regard to the purport of Rule 13(7)(2), the 1st respondent had no alternative, except to declare that respondents 2 to 5 have ceased to be the members of the Mandal Parishad.
29. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. A writ of mandamus shall issue to the effect that respondents 2 to 5 have incurred disqualification for defying the whip issued by the 1st petitioner in the elections held on 22-7-2001 for electing the President and the Vice-President of the Yeleswaram Mandal Parishad. No costs.