JUDGMENT : 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. 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 receipts on 21.7.2011. (iii) Ext. P5 is a letter given by the DCC President to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat stating that he had given directions to all members to vote against the no-confidence motion which was placed for discussion on 28.7.2011. (iv) Ext. P28 postal receipts on 21.7.2011. (iii) Ext. P5 is a letter given by the DCC President to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat stating that he had given directions to all members to vote against the no-confidence motion which was placed for discussion on 28.7.2011. (iv) Ext. P20 is the copy of letter given by the DCC President to the Kanjirappally Block Panchayat Secretary stating that he had given directions to all the Congress members to vote against the no-confidence motion and Ext. P22 is the receipt. Exts. P6, P7 and P8 are copies of directions given by P.W. 2 to the Grama Panchayat Secretary and Ext. P9 is copy of a similar direction given by the DCC President to the Panchayat Secretary. 9. It is found by the Election Commission that voting against the direction or decision of a political party to which the member belongs is sufficient to attract the first limb of S. 3(1)(a) and such conduct of a member amounts to voluntarily giving up his membership from that party. Reliance is placed in Dharma Mani G. Vs. Parassala Block Panchayat and Others, wherein it is held that supporting the no-confidence motion against the candidates of one's own political party amounts to voluntarily giving up membership of that political party. The petitioners have moved a no-confidence motion against the 1st respondent disobeying the direction and decision of the DCC President and they voted in favour of the no-confidence motion which conduct would lead to an inference that they have become disloyal to the Congress party. It is further held that decision of the District Committee is not required for the DCC President to give a decision of the party regarding the stand to be taken in respect of a no-confidence motion. 10. The Election Commission also found that there is evidence to show that the directions of the DCC President were sent by registered post on 21.7.2011 and even if the postal articles were received by the petitioners only after the meeting of the no-confidence motion, that can only be considered as a tactics adopted by them in not receiving the same on early dates. 11. 11. It is further found that a member of the political party is not entitled to move a no-confidence motion against his own President without the written consent or written decision of such political party and the other political parties in the coalition have no locus standi to say anything regarding the decision or stand taken by the Congress party members. 12. The Election Commission opined that the evidence of R.Ws. 2 and 5 were totally irrelevant, that the evidence of R.W. 3 and R.W. 4 were similar to the version of R.W.I. that the evidence of R.Ws. 7, 8 10 and 11 do not assume any significance due to the evidence given by the DCC President, that R.W. 9 has admitted in cross-examination that the respondent in O.P. No. 32/2011 was the official candidate of congress party for the post of President in the subsequent election in which he contested and was elected as President, that R.W. 3 admitted in cross-examination that when they discussed the matter with the DCC and Block Congress Committee no decision was arrived at and so they decided to proceed with the no-confidence motion, that R.W. 4 also admitted that the DCC President was against moving the no-confidence motion and that the contents of Exts. R4 and R5 would show that no decision was taken to move the no-confidence motion. 13. The question to be considered is whether these findings can be found to be wrong and whether such findings would amount to disqualification of a member on the ground of defection under S. 3(1)(a) of the Act. R4 and R5 would show that no decision was taken to move the no-confidence motion. 13. The question to be considered is whether these findings can be found to be wrong and whether such findings would amount to disqualification of a member on the ground of defection under S. 3(1)(a) of the Act. S. 3(1)(a) reads as under: Disqualification on ground of Defection:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994), or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994) or in any other law for the time being in force, subject to the other provisions of this Act,- (a) if a member of local authority belonging to any political party voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party, or if such member, contrary to any direction in writing issued by the political party to which he belongs or by a person or authority authorised by it in this behalf in the manner prescribed, votes or abstains from voting,- (i) in a meeting of a Municipality, in an election of its Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, a member of Standing Committee or the Chairman of a Standing Committee; or (ii) in a meeting of a Panchayat, in an election of its President, Vice President, a member of a Standing Committee; or the Chairman of the Standing Committee; or in a voting on a no-confidence motion against any one of them except a member of a Standing Committee; 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are members of I.N.C. They have elected a President with the approval of other coalition partners. Disqualification arises, in cases where a member of any political party "voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party" or "if such member votes or abstain from voting contrary to any direction in writing issued by the political party to which he belongs or by a person or authority authorised by him in this behalf in the manner prescribed". As stated by the Election Commission, S. 3(1)(a) has two limbs. One is a member giving up his membership from the political party and secondly voting or abstaining from voting contrary to the instructions given by the political party in the manner prescribed. 15. As stated by the Election Commission, S. 3(1)(a) has two limbs. One is a member giving up his membership from the political party and secondly voting or abstaining from voting contrary to the instructions given by the political party in the manner prescribed. 15. The Election Commission in its order comes to a finding that the second limb of S. 3(1)(a) is not attracted as there is no material to show that any whip had been issued by the DCC President by convening the parliamentary party meeting. 16. The only ground on which petitioners are disqualified is based on their action in (i) moving a no-confidence motion and (ii) voting in favour of the no-confidence motion, disregarding the directions issued by the DCC President, which according to the Election Commission amounts to "voluntarily giving up membership". 17. The question that arises for consideration is therefore whether the DCC President had given any such directions not to move the no-confidence motion or to vote against the no-confidence motion and assuming that such directions had been issued whether it amounts to disqualification under the Act. Both parties have adduced evidence. The Election Commission relied upon the evidence of the 2nd respondent herein and the DCC President and did not rely upon the evidence adduced on the behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that the evidence of R.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 clearly proved the fact that there was a discussion in the DCC office in the matter relating to removal of the 2nd respondent from the position of President and the same was accepted in principle. According to them, it is based on an approval given by the congress party that they have moved the no-confidence motion against the 2nd respondent and voted in favour of the resolution. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and Others Vs. B.S. Yeddyurappa and Others,. Paragraph 49, is relied upon which reads as under. Having dealt with the various decisions referred to herein above, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it was clear that an act of no confidence in the leader of the legislative party does not amount to his voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party. Paragraph 49, is relied upon which reads as under. Having dealt with the various decisions referred to herein above, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it was clear that an act of no confidence in the leader of the legislative party does not amount to his voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party. Similarly, his act of expressing no confidence in the Government formed by the party, with a particular leader as the Chief Minister, would not also amount to a voluntary act of giving up the membership of the political party. This finding was accepted by the Supreme Court is the argument. 19. Therefore the contention is that if a member of a political party moves a no-confidence motion against the President of the same political party, it does not by itself amount to disqualification. 20. The Election Commission has relied upon the judgment in Dharma Mani's case (supra) in order to arrive at a conclusion that supporting a no-confidence motion against a member of the same political party would amount to voluntarily giving up a membership of a political party. Though the Election Commission has also relied upon the judgments in Varghese V.V. Vs. The Kerala State Election Commission and Another, I do not think that any of these judgments can be read as laying down such a principle. There is no hard and fast rule that merely for the reason that one of the members of a political party decides to move a no-confidence motion against an office bearer of the same party, it amounts to voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party. If that is the situation no one will be a in a position to protest against any illegality committed by such office bearers. Therefore, in addition to the moving a resolution of no-confidence motion there should be something more than the same. This is not a case where the no-confidence motion was brought in by any other party member or by the L.D.F. in the case and it was supported by the petitioners. If that would have been the position, the principle of law laid down in Dharma Mani's case would straight away apply. This is an instance where members of the same party moved the no-confidence motion and they voted in favour of it. If that would have been the position, the principle of law laid down in Dharma Mani's case would straight away apply. This is an instance where members of the same party moved the no-confidence motion and they voted in favour of it. It is in this background that the legality of the order passed by the Election Commission has to be verified. 21. In Faisal P.A. Vs. K.A. Abdulla Kunhi and Another, a learned single Judge of this Court held that by accepting the nomination of members of a rival coalition, a person would voluntarily abandon membership of his political party. That was a case in which the U.D.F. members were on one side and President was aligning with the opposition. It was also found that the said petitioner had voted along with the members of the opposition. Hence an inference was drawn from the conduct of the member that he had voluntarily given up his membership of a political party to Which he belongs. 22. In S. Shajahan Vs. Chathannoor Grama Panchayat and Others a Division Bench of this Court found that the petitioner in that case committed defection based on the evidence that the petitioner in that case submitted resignation from the post of President. He thereafter contested for President-ship without getting permission from the party on whose banner he was elected. He took up a contention that after he submitted his resignation, he was supported by another political party other than the political party under whom he was elected. Relying upon Ravi S. Naik and Sanjay Bandekar Vs. Union of India and others, the Division Bench held that the Election Commission was justified in finding the petitioner as disqualified. Therefore in all such instances there is a finding by the Election Commission that the persons who is alleged to have been disqualified or defected had the support of the opposition. There is no such instance here. The members proceeded on the basis that the Congress party had permitted them to move the no-confidence motion and to vote against the 1st respondent. Apparently, though there was no authorisation in writing either to vote in favour of the no-confidence motion or against it, there is no material to indicate that the petitioners have gained the support of the opposite faction or L.D.F. The entire coalition partners other than two members supported the no-confidence motion. Apparently, though there was no authorisation in writing either to vote in favour of the no-confidence motion or against it, there is no material to indicate that the petitioners have gained the support of the opposite faction or L.D.F. The entire coalition partners other than two members supported the no-confidence motion. The evidence available on record does not in any way indicate that the petitioners have joined or gained the support of another political party other than members of the coalition. This is an instance in which majority of the members of I.N.C. as well as the coalition decides to move a no confidence motion and, they vote in favour of the said motion. Other than the evidence of DCC President and the letters issued by him as Exts. P5, P9 and P20 there is no other material to conclude the decisions of I.N.C. It definitely gives an indication that he had instructed the members not to favour the no confidence motion. The question is, if the members acts against the written direction of the DCC President, can it be stated that the members are guilty of defection. In Ravi S. Naik's case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that even in the absence of a formal resignation from membership an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he has voluntarily given up his membership. Therefore a conclusion can be arrived at only on the basis of inferences. It is not in dispute that making such an inference from a set of facts has drastic consequences. There should be concrete proof that the members have acted against the directions of the Congress Party (I.N.C.). The Election Commission finds that acting against the instructions of the DCC President amounts to acting against the political party. Can such a view be taken will be the question. It is in evidence that the petitioners had met the representatives of the political party on the previous day and had discussions. But no decision could be taken in the matter. What is the authority of DCC President in the matter and what is the extent of control he has over the members is not evident. Definitely the letters he had issued does not amount to a whip. But no decision could be taken in the matter. What is the authority of DCC President in the matter and what is the extent of control he has over the members is not evident. Definitely the letters he had issued does not amount to a whip. If the bye laws of the I.N.C. party prescribes that the members are to obey the instructions of the DCC President, the Election Commission would have been justified in coming to such a conclusion. Such materials are not available in the case. Viewed in that back ground, I think that the Election Commission had proceeded to consider irrelevant materials to draw an inference, while coming to the conclusion that the petitioners have defected from the party. They have a right to move a no-confidence motion against the President which does not require the mandate of the Congress party. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the Election Commission is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as follows: (a) Ext. P10 is set aside. (b) The petitioners shall remain as elected members of the Panchayat and shall exercise all such powers.