A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. The petitioners challenge Ext. P10 order of the State Election Commission declaring the petitioners as disqualified for being members of Manimala Grama Panchayat and declaring them as disqualified to contest as the candidates in any election of the local authority for a period of six years from the date of the order i.e., 31.10.2012. Petitioners are elected candidates of Manimala Grama Panchayat. They are all members of the political party, Indian National Congress (I.N.C.) which is part of the coalition, the United Democratic Front (U.D.F.).

2. The elections were held in October 2010. The U.D.F. won ten seats, out of which five seats were won by I.N.C. candidates, four of them Kerala Congress (M) and one seat by Indian Union Muslim League. Among the balance five seats three were elected from Left Democratic Front one Bharatiya Janatha Party and other independent.

3. Sri. K.M. Joseph, the 2nd respondent herein was elected as the Congress Parliamentary Party Leader and Chief Whip. He was also elected as the President of the Panchayat duly supported by all other members of U.D.F.

4. Separate Original Petitions were filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the State Election Commission as O.P. Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of 2011 alleging that the petitioners in collusion with the other coalition partners moved a no-confidence motion against the President of the Panchayat and in total disregard of the whip issued by the Chief Whip and directions of the District Congress Committee (DCC) President, the petitioners moved the no-confidence motion and voted in favour of the same and ousted the petitioner from the post of President. This according to the 1st respondent amounted to disqualification as provided under S. 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act.

5. Three other similar petitions were filed for the same relief as O.P. Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2011. Two petitions were filed by the 1st petitioner herein to disqualify the first respondent herein and another member Smt. Valsala as O.P. Nos. 31 of 2011 and 32 of 2011. All the petitions were heard together.

6. By a common order, the Election Commission passed Ext. P10 order allowing O.P. Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of 2011 and O.P. Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 2011. O.P. Nos. 31 and 32 of 2011 were dismissed. Petitioners challenge the impugned order mainly on the ground that proposing a no-confidence motion and voting in favour of the same against the President of the Panchayat does not amount to disqualification under the Act. It is also contended that the evidence adduced in the case discloses that the no-confidence motion was moved and put to vote and the petitioners favoured the motion with the consent, knowledge and approval of the Congress Party.

7. Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent supporting the stand taken by the Election Commission. According to the 2nd respondent, there was sufficient evidence to show that the President of the DCC, Kottayam had given clear instructions to the petitioners not to move the no-confidence motion and to vote against the no-confidence motion. The directions issued by the Congress party were not obeyed by the petitioners and therefore they have, by their own action became disqualified in terms of S. 3(1)(a) of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission has made available the necessary assistance for hearing the case.

8. A perusal of Ext. P10 order would show that the Election Commission had arrived at certain specific findings to come to the impugned conclusion.

(i) The DCC President who is examined as P.W. 3 has deposed that he had issued direction to all the congress members in the Panchayat to vote against the no-confidence motion which was placed for discussion on 28.7.2011.

(a) The no-confidence motion was moved by the petitioner without the knowledge or consent of the congress party. The directions of the Congress DCC President was sent to the petitioners as per Ext. P28 postal