JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The impugned Ext. P3 in these writ petitions, is a common order, dated 07/03/2005, of the Kerala State Election Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission", dismissing, after joint trial, OP Nos. 255, 256 and 257 of 2003, giving rise to, respectively, WP (C) Nos. 10047, 10049 and 10046 of 2005. Hence, these writ petitions are consolidated and heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The persons arrayed respectively as the second respondent in these writ petitions (hereinafter referred to, for clarity, as the "alleged defectors"), the writ petitioner and PW 2 in the proceedings before the Commission, were members of the Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat and were so elected, having contested as members of a political party, Kerala Congress (M). The Commission has also noticed that these are admitted facts. 3. The allegations of the writ petitioner were that PW 2 was elected on 09/09/2003 as the person (hereinafter, called the "whip") authorised to issue directions to the other members of the Panchayat, belonging to that political party; that the election of PW 2 as the whip was communicated to the Secretary of the Panchayat on 15/09/2003; that PW 2 issued directions to the members of the political party, Kerala Congress (M), in the Panchayat, to vote against the no confidence motion moved against the Vice President of the Panchayat; and that after receipt of the directions as aforesaid, the alleged defectors violated the directions issued by the whip and voted, resulting in the no confidence motion against the Vice President, being carried. The conduct of the alleged defectors demonstrates that they had voluntarily given up their membership of the political party to which they belonged. On these allegations, it was contended that the alleged defectors violated S.3(1)(a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, hereinafter, the "Act" for short. 4. In the impugned Ext. P3 order, the Commission found that the directions issued by PW 2 to the alleged defectors were duly served on them and that they voted supporting the no confidence motion against the Vice President. 5. However, holding that the case of the petitioner that PW 2 was duly elected as the whip on 09/09/2003 is improbable, going by the evidence on record, it was held that it is not proved that the alleged defectors are disqualified on account of having committed defection. 5. However, holding that the case of the petitioner that PW 2 was duly elected as the whip on 09/09/2003 is improbable, going by the evidence on record, it was held that it is not proved that the alleged defectors are disqualified on account of having committed defection. Resultantly, the petitions before the Commission were dismissed. 6. With no statutory appeal against the Commission's decision, Ext. P3, it is under attack in these writ petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, on grounds that the same is unreasonable, perverse, unavailable on the basis of the materials on record and contrary to law and, in that sense, in excess of jurisdiction. 7. As already noticed, the facts that the writ petitioner, PW 2 and the alleged defectors were members of the political party, Kerala Congress (M) and that they contested as members of the said political party and were elected as members of the Panchayat are not in dispute. The Commission found that the directions issued by PW 2 to the alleged defectors were duly served on the alleged defectors and that they voted supporting the no confidence motion against the Vice President, contrary to the said directions. The only issue in dispute is as to whether the writ petitioner had established that PW 2 is the whip authorised to issue the directions to the members of the Panchayat, belonging to the political party, Kerala Congress (M). 8. It is necessary, at this juncture, to note that, in the matter of judicial review of decisions by the Commission, in the absence of patent illegality or error of law or error of jurisdiction, interference may not be made under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ court is not to venture into a reappreciation of the evidence and reverse the finding of facts arrived at after detailed consideration and after complying with the principles of natural justice, unless they are perverse, in the sense that they are unavailable on the materials on record. The decisions of this Court in Annamkutty v. Baby ( 2000 (3) KLT 18 ) and W.P.(C) Nos. 9896/2005 and con. cases are relevant in this context. 9. The Commission has made the records of the case available. 10. During the course of hearing on 19/08/2005, certain discrepancies were noted in the records. The decisions of this Court in Annamkutty v. Baby ( 2000 (3) KLT 18 ) and W.P.(C) Nos. 9896/2005 and con. cases are relevant in this context. 9. The Commission has made the records of the case available. 10. During the course of hearing on 19/08/2005, certain discrepancies were noted in the records. Accordingly, this Court issued an order, on that day, to the following effect: "Having heard these matters for quite some time, there appears to be some confusion regarding Ext. P5 series which are produced before me as part of the records of the Election Commission. According to the files presented from the Election Commission, Exts. P25, P25(a) and P25(b) are marked. There is no document as Ext. P25(b) in the Appendix to the impugned Ext. P3 order. That apart, PW 8, through whom Ext. P25 is marked, does not speak of any document which is marked as Ext. P25(b). PW 8 has deposed that Ext. P25(a) is in the form of 'Minutes'. What is made available by the Election Commission as Ext. P25(a) is not such a document, while what is produced as Ext. P26(a) is in the form of 'Minutes' and the same witness has proved the said document as calling it 'Minutes'. In such circumstances, it is necessary that the original records maintained by the Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat, which were made available before the Election Commission during the trial of OP No. 255/2003, are made available to this Court at the next date of hearing which is fixed as after the lunch session on 22nd August, 2005. The Secretary of the Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat shall be present on that day with the said records. In the event of personal inconvenience on his part, he shall ensure that the said documents are made available through a competent messenger under his control. The Registry will also give a telephonic intimation regarding the gist of this order to Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat before the end of office hours today." 11. As directed, the Secretary of the Panchayat produced the file. The photostat copies of the relevant sheets are retained in the file of W.P.(C) No. 10046 of 2005, as Exts. X7, X8, X9, X10 (2 pages), X11, X12 (2 pages) and X13, following the "X" series documents marked by the Commission in the impugned Ext. P3 order. These documents will clear the discrepancy in Ext. The photostat copies of the relevant sheets are retained in the file of W.P.(C) No. 10046 of 2005, as Exts. X7, X8, X9, X10 (2 pages), X11, X12 (2 pages) and X13, following the "X" series documents marked by the Commission in the impugned Ext. P3 order. These documents will clear the discrepancy in Ext. P25 series, which appear to have been damaged, may be accidentally and unintentionally (or, was that bunch mutilated?). While all the other exhibits in the file of the Commission, which have sheets more than one, have been stapled and are also tagged with thread or twine, Ext. P25 series, though, on a close examination, would show that it was stapled and punctured and tied with thread or twine, it is now, not in that state and the three sheets are torn at one pull, near the stapling. This would not have needed to be referred to, but for the fact that Ext. P25 has three sheets P25, P25(a) and P25(b), while the Appendix to the impugned Ext. P3 order issued by the Commission shows that only Ext. P25 and Ext. P25(a) have been noticed. May be, it is an error in preparing the Appendix to the order. It could also be that there was tampering of the records. This instance, I am sure, would alert the Commission. I could leave it there. 12. But, if the contents of Ext. P25 had been Exts. X7, X8, X9, X10, X11, X12 and X13 as marked by this Court, the Commission could never have come to the conclusion that the contents of Exts. P9 and P11 before the Commission "militate against each other". Ext. P9 before the Commission is the copy of the letter dated 12/09/2003, issued to the Secretary of the Panchayat, informing the election of PW 2 as the whip. Ext. P11 before the Commission is the copy of the receipt dated 12/09/2003, issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat, regarding the receipt of Ext. P9 and the copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Parliamentary Party held on 09/09/2003, electing PW 2 as the whip. The reason stated in the impugned Ext. P3 order, for the Commission to hold that Exts. P9 and P11 militate against each other, is that while Ext. P11 acknowledges receipt of the Minutes of the meeting of the Parliamentary Party, along with Ext. The reason stated in the impugned Ext. P3 order, for the Commission to hold that Exts. P9 and P11 militate against each other, is that while Ext. P11 acknowledges receipt of the Minutes of the meeting of the Parliamentary Party, along with Ext. P9, the intimation of the election of PW 2 as the whip, Ext. P9 does not state that the copy of the said Minutes is being enclosed and forwarded alongwith it. However, the absence of any statement in Ext. P9 before the Commission, as to the delivery of the copy of the Minutes, could not have weighed with the Commission, if the contents of Ext. P25 had been Exts. X7, X8, X9, X10, X11, X12 and X13 as marked by this Court. This is so because; they are documents in the proper custody of the Secretary of the Panchayat; the then Secretary of the Panchayat had given evidence as PW 8, as regards the receipt of the Ext. P9 and the copy of the Minutes; he is not accused of being partisan and the Commission could not have disbelieved him, on the basis of the materials on record. 13. Exts. X7, X8, X9, X10, X11, X12 and X13 as marked by this Court have been produced by the successor in office of PW 8, who has since been transferred. There is no reason to assume that Exts. X7, X8, X9, X10, X11, X12 and X13 were taken on its record by the Panchayat after the Secretary of the Panchayat produced the materials before the Commission. I therefore admit on record Exts. X7, X8, X9, X10, X11, X12 and X13, in furtherance of Ext. P25 before the Commission, to secure the ends of justice. 14. Now I proceed to consider the issues in hand, namely: (i) Whether the writ petitioner had established that PW 2 is the whip authorised to issue the directions to the members of the Panchayat, belonging to the political party, Kerala Congress (M)? (ii) Whether the finding to the contrary, in the impugned Ext. P3 order, is liable to be disturbed in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution? 15. In Para.19 of the impugned Ext. P3 order, the Commission found that from Exts. P2, P3 and P4 acknowledgement cards signed by the alleged defectors it is clear that they had received Ext. P1 notice was issued by PW 3 Mr. P3 order, is liable to be disturbed in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution? 15. In Para.19 of the impugned Ext. P3 order, the Commission found that from Exts. P2, P3 and P4 acknowledgement cards signed by the alleged defectors it is clear that they had received Ext. P1 notice was issued by PW 3 Mr. P. V. Joseph, the Mandalam President of Kerala Congress(M), intimating that the meeting of the members belonging to Kerala Congress(M) will be held on 09/09/2003 at 10 a.m. It was further held that it is clear from the evidence that the meeting was convened on 09/09/2003 at 10 a.m. to elect the parliamentary party leader and the whip. Therefore, the fact that the alleged defectors had notice of the said meeting for the purpose of electing also the whip and that the meeting was held, have been found by the Commission. The convening of the said meeting was by an authority in the party, namely, the Mandalam President of the party. 16. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 spoke regarding the conduct of the meeting and the fact that four out of seven members participated in the meeting and elected PW 2 as a whip. The alleged defectors admittedly did not participate in the said meeting in spite of notice. There is no contra evidence on record regarding what transpired in the said meeting. However, in Para.20 of the impugned Ext. P3 order, Commission disbelieved Ext. P5 minutes of the said meeting and has refused to act upon it by stating that the writing of the minutes in loose sheets is an aspect which improbabilises the case that PW 2 was elected as the whip. In Para.21 of the impugned Ext. P3 order, the Commission adverted to R.4(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000, hereinafter called "the Disqualification Rules" and noticed that the purpose of the said rule is to exclude any controversy regarding the election of the whip as provided in the Act. However, the intimation given to the Secretary on 12/09/2003 regarding the election of the whip on 09/09/2003 was treated by the Commission as not done immediately as provided for in R.4(2) of the Disqualification Rules. However, the intimation given to the Secretary on 12/09/2003 regarding the election of the whip on 09/09/2003 was treated by the Commission as not done immediately as provided for in R.4(2) of the Disqualification Rules. Though the Commission proceeded to state that the registration of the whip with the Secretary of the Panchayat gives probative value to the election and though the Secretary of the Panchayat had given evidence as PW 8 regarding the receipt of the intimation of the election of PW 2 as the whip, the Commission disbelieved the version of PW 8 that the intimation was entered in the distribution register of the Panchayat, for the sole reason that the petitioner had not taken steps to have the distribution register produced before the Commission to show that the receipt of the intimation was properly entered in the register on 12/09/2003 itself. 17. Thus, it can be easily noticed from a reading of Para.19, 20 and 21 of the impugned Ext. P3 order that while the convening of the meeting on 09/09/2003 to elect the whip with notice to be alleged defectors is found to have been proved, the election of PW 2 as the whip in that meeting is treated as not proved only on account of the fact that the minutes were maintained in loose sheets and that the distribution register of the Panchayat was not made available before the Commission to prove the receipt of the intimation of the election of the whip and because the election of the whip on 09/09/2003 was intimated to the Panchayat only on 12/09/2003. 18. R.4(2) of the Disqualification Rules reads as follows: "4. The manner in which a political party or coalition may give direction to its members. -- (2) The political party and the coalition having representation in a local authority shall, immediately when the member who shall issue direction under sub-r.(1) is elected, inform the fact to the Secretary." 19. As rightly viewed by the Commission, the intimation of the election of the whip to the Secretary of the Panchayat gives probative value to the election. This is so because, the application to the Commission for a declaration as to disqualification of a member on ground referred to in S.3(1)(a) need not necessarily be by the person who is elected as the whip and who had issued the directions, which are alleged to be violated. This is so because, the application to the Commission for a declaration as to disqualification of a member on ground referred to in S.3(1)(a) need not necessarily be by the person who is elected as the whip and who had issued the directions, which are alleged to be violated. The intimation of the election of the whip has to be intimated to the Secretary, the purpose of such intimation being, to ensure that the Secretary has with him such intimation before the elected whip issues any directions to the members of the Panchayat, who are the members of that political party. In this context, the Secretary of the Panchayat takes the role of an umpire. He keeps the intimation of the election of the whip given to him under R.4(2) of the Disqualification Rules and the fact that it has been so given to him, has to be evidenced by the receipt issued by him. In the instant case, the intimation of the election of PW 2 as the whip is given on 12/09/2003 and the issue in hand is as to whether the alleged defectors had violated the directions issued by PW 2 on 26/11/2003 regarding the voting in the no confidence motion slated to be held on 05/12/2003. 20. The use of the word "immediately" in R.4(2) of the Disqualification Rules has to be understood in the context in which it is placed and the objects sought to be achieved by such placement of the said word. The word. "immediately", going by the Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary, is explained with reference to the word "immediate" which means "with nothing between: not acting by second causes: direct: present: without delay". The term "immediately" has been explained in the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, RP 2004, showing the different shades in which the said word is used in the context of law and the variety of situations enumerated therein would lead one to the conclusion that the word has to be construed, having regard to the situation in hand. The term "immediately" fell for consideration of the Apex Court, though in a different context, in Tulsiram's case ( 1984 (4) SCC 487 ) wherein, in construing the said term, it was noticed as follows: "It is not to be understood to mean the very next instant; the very next hour, that very day or the very next day. The term "immediately" fell for consideration of the Apex Court, though in a different context, in Tulsiram's case ( 1984 (4) SCC 487 ) wherein, in construing the said term, it was noticed as follows: "It is not to be understood to mean the very next instant; the very next hour, that very day or the very next day. It must be construed in its setting. It is no use turning to dictionaries. Dictionaries give variegated meanings to words. What meaning is to be adopted depends on the context." By stating so, the Apex Court construed R.9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 to hold that in so far as that rule is concerned, the word "immediately" is used to convey a sense of continuity rather than a sense of urgency. Now what is the object sought to be achieved by the introduction of the word "immediately" in R.4(2) of the Disqualification Rules? As already noticed, the Secretary has to be intimated regarding the election of the whip. This is to ensure that the authority of the elected whip to issue directions to the members of the political party in the Panchayat cannot be a matter in dispute. So much so, whether the election of the whip has been intimated immediately to the Secretary of the Panchayat, or not, depends upon the facts of each case. In the instant case, on 12/09/2003, i.e., on the third day of the meeting on 09/09/2003, the Secretary of the Panchayat was intimated of the election of PW 2 as the whip on 09/09/2003. It is only on 26/11/2003, that the direction in question was issued by PW 2, as the whip, as regards the voting in the no confidence motion slated on 05/12/2003. The delay of two days in intimating the election of the whip, to the Secretary of the Panchayat cannot be treated as fatal in this case. More so, when the receipt of such information by the Secretary of the Panchayat has been proved by the petitioner by producing the receipt issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat and by the production of the intimation by the Secretary, from proper custody, corroborated by his testimony as PW 8. 21. More so, when the receipt of such information by the Secretary of the Panchayat has been proved by the petitioner by producing the receipt issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat and by the production of the intimation by the Secretary, from proper custody, corroborated by his testimony as PW 8. 21. The Commission has disbelieved the version of PW 8 regarding the receipt of the intimation regarding the election of PW 2 as the whip only on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained the production of the distribution register of the Panchayat. Firstly, by the production of the receipt issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat, the authenticity of which is not in dispute, the delivery of the communication regarding the election of PW 2 as the whip, to the Secretary on 12/09/2003 stands proved. As already noticed, this is corroborated by the version of PW 8, the Secretary of the Panchayat. Going by law, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the petitioner for the non availability of the distribution register of the Panchayat, before the Commission. This is on account of two reasons. Firstly, adverse inference can be drawn only against he who had suppressed the materials. The distribution register is not one belonging to the petitioner. Secondly, the Commission had not asked for the production of the said distribution register. Reference in this context need to be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Ramrati Kuer v. Dwarika Prasad, ( AIR 1967 SC 1134 ) and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. ( 2000 (2) SCC 617 ). 22. As regards the view taken by the Commission on the maintenance of minutes by the political party to which the parties to the dispute belonged, there is no statutory rule providing for maintenance of minutes in book form. The production of minutes before the Secretary of the Panchayat is not necessary at all, going by the provisions in the Disqualification Rules. All that is required is that the election of the whip shall be intimated. The broad probabilities on which the Commission has disbelieved the minutes are unfortunate. I say so because, it is easy to assume that if it were in a book form, the minutes could have been torn and that the maintenance of minutes in a book form would add credibility to it. The broad probabilities on which the Commission has disbelieved the minutes are unfortunate. I say so because, it is easy to assume that if it were in a book form, the minutes could have been torn and that the maintenance of minutes in a book form would add credibility to it. It has to be at once noticed that it is nobody's case that the minutes were torn. The object sought to be achieved by the legislation of which we are now concerned, requires the decision to rest primarily on the intimation given to the Secretary of the Panchayat regarding the election of the whip. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the conclusions in Ext. P3 resulting in the dismissal of the petitions filed by the writ petitioner before the Commission are such that they are wholly unavailable on the materials on record and hence, perverse. The same are liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same are set aside. 24. This immediately takes one to the question as to whether, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the disqualification of the alleged defectors could be declared by this Court, or should there be, necessarily, a remit to the Commission, for reconsideration. The reasons given in the impugned order having been found to be unsustainable and the materials on record pointing only at the conduct of the alleged defectors as alleged by the petitioner, there is no reason why such a declaration cannot be made. This is because, as already noticed, the Commission had held that a meeting of the members belonging to the party was convened on 09/09/2003 with notice to the alleged defectors and that the intimation regarding the election of PW 2 as the whip was given to the Secretary of the Panchayat on 12/09/2003. The Commission further found that PW 2 had issued directions to the alleged defectors regarding the voting at the motion of the no confidence against the Vice President of the Panchayat and that the alleged defectors had voted contrary to the directions so issued. Therefore, the only question that remained is as to whether the election of PW 2 as the whip was proved. Therefore, the only question that remained is as to whether the election of PW 2 as the whip was proved. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the election of PW 2 as the whip in the meeting on 09/09/2003 is proved by the materials on record, without any contra evidence and the same has been duly intimated on 12/09/2003 to the Secretary of the Panchayat. As noticed by the Commission, such intimation gives probative value to the election of PW 2 as the whip. So much so, no further materials are required to be brought on record and the decision making on the materials on record does not call for any further examination of the facts and the only conclusion that is available on the materials on record is that the alleged defectors had committed defection and are, therefore, disqualified in terms of S.3(1)(a) of the Act. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned Ext. P3 is set aside and it is declared that the alleged defectors, namely, the persons arrayed as second respondent respectively in O. P. Nos. 255, 256 and 257 of 2003 on the file of the Election Commission are disqualified in terms of S.3 of Act 11 of 1999.