1. The question that has been raised in this Writ Petition is as to whether the Block Development Officer, Chavakkad (1st respondent herein) was disabled from drawing up Ext. P2, which had resulted in prejudice to the petitioners. The first petitioner was functioning as the President and rest of the petitioners are the Members of the Vadakkekadu Grama Panchayat. A no confidence motion came to be presented in the Panchayat. Though initially the officer had declared that the motion stood defeated, he had shortly thereafter declared that the motion stood carried. If the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, it would be possible for the first petitioner to continue as President of the Grama Panchayat, otherwise he will have to vacate office. The brief facts could be narrated herein below.

2. The no confidence motion had been tabled by the opposition. Consequently, a meeting by the competent authority was specially convened on 26th August, 2003. The meeting had commenced at the appointed time and the Block Development Officer, the competent authority, had presided over the meeting. The notified strength of members of the Panchayat was 13. Twelve of them were present. Discussions had been held and the motion was put to vote thereafter. One of the members of the Panchayat had abstained from voting. 7 votes were recorded in support of the motion and 4 against. As prescribed by the statute, it was open voting. The minutes of the meeting shows that after the voting the Block Development Officer declared that the resolution had been lost. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the meeting concluded by 12.30 P.M. He had signed the minutes.

3. The further averment in the Writ Petition is that a few members had 'gheraoed' the officer and he had been pressurised to reconsider the matter. This was for the reason that under the amended S. 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short, the Act) what was required was only a simple majority to carry the motion. The petitioners submit that while this show was going on, most of them had left the hall. Succumbing to the pressure of the group, after talking with the office of the State Election Commission, the first respondent had altered the minutes and held that since 7 members voted in favour of the motion, it was deemed as carried. Such decision had been recorded as a continuation in the minutes. Ext. P2 is the full text. The petitioners thereupon had approached this Court, and by an interim order on 27.8.2003, Ext. P2 decision had been stayed. In the course of hearing the Writ Petition, it has come out that the Vice President of the Panchayat had been requested to assume office of the President and this had been done. The first petitioner had re-assumed office on the strength of the order and is continuing.

4. The respondents had filed counter affidavits justifying Ext. P2 final decision of the first respondent. By consent of all the parties, when the matter was listed in the petition list, it was agreed to be finally heard, taking note of the urgency.

5. The Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission has made available the original of Ext. P2 proceedings in a sealed cover. It is evident that substantially the transaction of business, that had been carried out on the relevant date, was as stated by the petitioners in the Writ Petition. The first respondent has recorded in the minutes as following:

Since the notified strength is 13 and its half 61/2 which has to be considered as 7 and since the majority is to be obtained by adding one more, since there is no majority of eight vis-a-vis the sanctioned strength, the motion is declared as defeated. However, persons who supported the motion, protested against the decision. The meeting concluded by 12.30 P.M.

6. What is recorded thereafter also becomes relevant. A functional translation could be as following:

Thereafter when persons who had supported the motion suggested that as S. 157 of the Act had been amended and a decision w