K.M. Joseph, J.

1. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

Petitioners were elected as the President and Vice President in the Wandoor Grama Panchayat in the year 2005. There are altogether twenty two Members, eleven belonging to the United Democratic Front, while eleven belonged to the Left Democratic Front. Respondents 2 and 3 issued notice to first respondent to convene a meeting under S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to discuss a No Confidence Motion against both the petitioners. Ext. P1 is produced as the Notice issued by the first respondent. Petitioners have raised three contentions. In the first place, they would contend that the Notice constitutes a contravention of S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is contended that this is so, for the reason firstly that copy of the Notice was not circulated among the Members of the Panchayat including the petitioners. The second complaint raised against the No Confidence Motion which was, in fact carried by a majority on 08/05/2007 is that there is a composite Notice in respect of the No Confidence Motions moved against the petitioners who were occupying the position of President and Vice President. In other words, the second complaint is that the law contemplates that there should be two separate Notices in regard to the President and the Vice President. Thirdly, the case of the petitioners is that the law as contained in S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is contravened for the reason that there is only one notice issued for convening two meetings. Finally, it is also contended by the petitioners that one of the persons who voted in the No Confidence Motion was a defector, who had no eligibility to exercise his franchise in the matter of the No Confidence Motion.

2. The Election Commission has filed a Statement, inter alia, taking the following stand:

Petitioners cannot challenge Ext. P1 for the reason that they have participated in the deliberations. It is their case that there is no prohibition against issuing a composite notice in respect of the President and the Vice President. It is their further case that for a valid notice, the notice for convening the meeting shall state the date, the time and place of the meeting, which have been indicated in Ext. P1. It is pointed out that on receipt of the separate notice of intention to move the No Confidence Motion against the petitioners signed by the requisite number of persons, the Authorised Officer issued Ext. P1 convening separate meetings to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioners. Of course, learned counsel for the Election Commission would contend that the No Confidence Motion having been carried by a majority, this Court may not interfere, as it would tantamount to putting the petitioners back in power, when the Members have ceased to have confidence in them and, therefore, passed the No Confidence Motion, whatever be the niceties of the contentions of the petitioners.

3. Shri P.K. Vijaya Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, also supports the impugned order by contending that the law has not been violated in the matter of issuance of Ext. P1 notice. He would also contend that the petitioners are estopped from challenging Ext. P1 after participating in the meeting.

4. Taking up the first contention, namely that there is a violation of S.157, it is contended by Shri K. Ramakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that when a No Confidence Motion is moved, it is highly necessary that the Members are provided with the copy of the Notice and the motion. According to him, without the Members being told the agenda, effective participation in the meeting would become impossible. Having regard to the drastic repercussions that follow, the passing of the No Confidence Motion, it is contended that the Members are entitled to know the contents of the Notice of the No Confidence Motion. In particular, he would contend that when sub-s.(2) of S.157