A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. Writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 1/3/2014 in OP No. 47/2013 of the Kerala State Election Commission (Ext. P3) by the petitioner in OP No. 47/2013. He alleged that the 2nd respondent herein has incurred disqualification as provided under Section 91(1)(f) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereby disqualified from holding the office of Councillor of Aluva Municipality representing ward No. 8. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Election Commission inter alia stating that the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement on 7/10/2012 with the Secretary of the Municipality whereby a charge was created in the property of the 2nd respondent which was offered as security for repayment of the amounts advanced for the work undertaken by the Sreekrishna Swamy Temple Advisory Ad hoc Committee. It is alleged that the said Committee is not a registered body and the fact that 2nd respondent has an interest in the said body, which has entered into an agreement with the Municipality, clearly amounts to disqualification in terms of Section91(1)(f) of the Act.

2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that in 2012, there arose a situation where the contractors declined to undertake the work of construction of the temporary pedestrian bridge across river Periyar in connection with Sivarathri festival. Due to urgency of the matter, Municipality requested the ad hoc committee to take over the construction. It is to tide over the situation and as directed by the High Court as per order dated 10/2/2012 in DBP No. 29/2009 that the Committee took over construction of the foot over bridge and completed the same. The 2nd respondent was the President of the ad hoc committee and she stated that she had no individual profit motive or other contractual interest in the matter. She also contended that her actions were exempted in terms of Rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Municipality (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Councillors in Certain Matters) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

3. The Election Commission after detailed consideration of the factual and legal issues involved the matter dismissed the original petition on the finding that Section 91(1)(f) of the Act is not attracted and that even if there was disqualification, the same is removed as provided under Rule 3(iii) of the Rules.

4. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Election Commission found that the undertaking given by the 2nd respondent cannot be construed as a contract made between the Municipality and the 2nd respondent. She had offered her property as security in larger public interest which was to provide basic amenities for the devotees who gathered at Sivarathri festival. In so far as it is not a pedestrian bridge considered as a work of the Municipality, the disqualification does not arise. It was also held that even assuming that there is disqualification, the 2nd respondent was exempted under Rule 3(iii) of the aforesaid rules.

5. It is impugning the aforesaid order that this writ petition has been filed inter alia contending that the Commission has committed serious error of law in arriving at a finding that the 2nd respondent is not disqualified and is exempted under Rule 3 (iii).

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent supporting the stand taken in the matter. Reliance is placed on the agreement executed based on directions issued by this Court in DBP No. 29/2009.

7. Heard Sri. T.R. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel, Sri. S. Sreekumar appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Sri. Murali Purhushothaman, learned standing counsel appearing for the Election Commission.

8. Two specific issues arise for consideration in the above writ petition. One is whether the 2nd respondent has vacated her office on account of disqualification as provided under Section 91(1)(f) of the Act and