JUDGMENT : S. MANIKUMAR, J. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the writ court in W.P.(C) No.32745/2019 dated 6.1.2020, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission, disqualifying the petitioner as a member of ward No.1 of Edavetty Grama Panchayat, Idukki District in the election held in November, 2015. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows; 3. While the appellant was continuing as a member of ward No.1 of aforesaid Grama Panchayat, 2nd respondent filed a petition as O.P.No.107/2018 before the Kerala State Election Commission under section 36 r/w. section 35(1)(f) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for declaring that the appellant has incurred disqualification for being continued as a member of the Edavetty Grama Panchayat. 4. After taking into consideration the evidence tendered by the respective parties and the documents, the Kerala State Election Commission has disqualified the appellant under section 35(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The grievance of the appellant is that, the Commission had not taken into consideration the scope of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases), Rules, 1995 whereby rule 3 clearly provides that, a member shall not be deemed to have any interest in subsisting contract when he undertakes any work for the benefit of the community. According to the appellant, the alleged works undertaken by the appellant are installation of citizen information boards under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act as directed in Ext.P4 communication of the Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi dated 7.4.2017. 5. The paramount contention advanced by Mr. S. Mohamed Al Rafi, learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that, the Kerala State Election Commission has passed the impugned order without properly examining the rules and the nature of work involved in the installation of citizen information boards and that Ext.P4 communication issued by the Central Government reveals that, the citizen information boards are placed for MNREGA work site for providing information to the beneficiaries and funds for those works are also provided by the Central Government. According to the appellant, unless the works were executed expeditiously, the funds would have lapsed. According to the appellant, unless the works were executed expeditiously, the funds would have lapsed. Hence, the works were executed for the benefit of the community, not as a contractor, but as a representative of the community and therefore, according to the learned counsel for appellant, rule 3 of Rules, 1995 specifically carves out an exception to Section 35(1)(f) of Act, 1994, and makes a member liable only if a member acquires any interest in any subsisting contract except as permitted by rules made under the Act, 1994. 6. It is contended that the writ court has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Act as well as Rules in a proper perspective, which culminated in the dismissal of the writ petition. It is also pleaded that, the writ court has not exercised the judicial discretion in an appropriate manner and therefore, there being a legal infirmity in the judgment passed, it is liable to be interfered with in this writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission has advanced arguments supporting the decision of the State Election Commission as well as the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. 8. We have heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. S. Mohammed Al Rafi and Mr. Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 9. The subject issue revolves around section 35(1)(f) of the Act, 1994 and rule 3(iii) of Rules, 1995. Rule 35 of Act, 1994 deals with disqualification of members. S. Mohammed Al Rafi and Mr. Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 9. The subject issue revolves around section 35(1)(f) of the Act, 1994 and rule 3(iii) of Rules, 1995. Rule 35 of Act, 1994 deals with disqualification of members. Sub-section (1) thereto states that “subject to the provisions of Section 36 or Section 102, a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he (a) x x x x x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x x x x x (d) x x x x x x x x x x x (e) x x x x x x x x x x x (f) acquires any interest in any subsisting contract made with, or work being done for, the Government or any Local Self-Government Institution except as a shareholder [other than a director] in a company or except as permitted by rules made under this Act or enters into the contract or work with the Local Self-Government Institution as a Convener of the beneficiary committee which undertake the project or work of the Local Self-Government Institution. 10. In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 34, clause (f) of section 35 and section 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by the Government of Kerala in consultation with the State Election Commission, Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases) Rules, 1995 has been framed. 11. 11. Rule 3 deals with removal of disqualification of candidates and members in certain cases, states that; “a person shall not be deemed to have any interest, for the purposes of clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 34 or clause (f) of section 35, in a subsisting contract made with or any work being done for the Panchayat concerned on the sole reason that he is having a share or interest in the following cases; (i) any sale, purchase or lease of an immovable property or entering into any agreement for the same; or (ii) in the case of a business of sale of any article or articles one ordinarily sells to Panchayat or in the purchase of any article or articles from the Panchayat, the value of transaction for one year in the aggregate does not exceed rupees five thousand in the case of Grama Panchayat, rupees seven thousand in the case of Block Panchayat and rupees ten thousand in the case of District Panchayat: or (iii) undertaking any contribution work in the Panchayat for the benefit of the community, not as a contractor, but as a representative of the community or the sponsor; or (iv) taking over of a building or shop room of Panchayat for commercial purposes on rent or lease”. 12. Exception carved out in section 35(1)(f), relied on by the appellant are two fold. One, if he acquires any interest in any subsisting contract made with, or work being done for, the Government or any Local Self Government Institution except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a company, which is not applicable to the appellant. The other exception is, except as permitted by rules made under this Act or enters into the contract or work with the Local Self Government Institution as a Convenor of the beneficiary committee which undertake the project or work of the Local Self-Government Institution. 13. The other exception is, except as permitted by rules made under this Act or enters into the contract or work with the Local Self Government Institution as a Convenor of the beneficiary committee which undertake the project or work of the Local Self-Government Institution. 13. As per rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases) Rules, 1995, “a person shall not be deemed to have any interest for the purposes of clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 34 or clause (f) of section 35, in a subsisting contract made with or any work being done for the Panchayat concerned on the sole reason that he is having a share, if he has undertaken any contribution work in the Panchayat for the benefit of the community, not as a contractor, but as a representative of the community or the sponsor. 14. Conjoint reading of section 35(1)(f) of the Act, 1994 with rule 3 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases) Rules, 1995, makes it clear that if any of the circumstances provided thereunder is undertaken by the appellant, other than the exception provided thereto, the appellant would be disqualified from continuing as a ward member of the Grama Panchayat and exception provided thereunder is only with respect to the work if he undertakes the work for and on behalf of the Grama Panchayat as a convener of a beneficiary committee etc. etc. who had no personal interest in the execution of the contract and not in receipt of money. 15. On analysis of evidence, the Kerala State Election Commission has categorically held that, the appellant had no case that he has not submitted any quotation for the installation work of citizen information board before the Grama Panchayat and that he has not executed the agreements as stated by the appellant. It was also noted that Exts.A3, A5, A6, A8, A10, A12 and A14 agreements would show that the appellant had entered into contracts with various Panchayats undertaking the work of installation of citizen information board. That apart Ext.A13 is an agreement executed by the appellant in favour of Velliyamattom Grama Panchayat for the work of construction of the protection wall to the Velliyamattom Leksham Veedu Colony on 7.3.2018. That apart Ext.A13 is an agreement executed by the appellant in favour of Velliyamattom Grama Panchayat for the work of construction of the protection wall to the Velliyamattom Leksham Veedu Colony on 7.3.2018. The Commission has also found that respondent has received the amount for work carried out by him as per the agreements, and Exts.X2 to X6 file would reveal the said aspect. Thus from the above, it could be seen the appellant who was a contractor for various works having received remuneration from the Panchayat will not fall under the exception in section 35(1)(f) of the Act r/w. Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases) Rules, 1995. 16. The Kerala State Election Commission after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into account the provisions of law discussed above, has categorically found that, a specific bar is created against the elected member of the Panchayat in acquiring any interest in any subsisting contract made with or work being done for the Government or any Local Self Government Institution except as permitted under section 35(1)(f) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 17. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that, the Commission has considered the question of disqualification taking into account the factual circumstances with reference to section 35(1)(f) of the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1995. Writ court has taken into account the arguments advanced by the appellant with respect to section 35(1)(f) of Act, 1994 and the provisions of rule 3 of Rules, 1995 and found that, there is no doubt that a member is not entitled to be disqualified, if he or she undertakes a work for the benefit of the village, community or Panchayat under any of the schemes promulgated by the State or the Centre alone, and in all other respects, the disqualification would come into play. 18. Appellant has not made out any case of legal infirmity justifying interference in the judgment of the writ court, in an intra court appeal under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. Needless to say, appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.