ORDER : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the decision of the Election Commission for disqualifying the petitioner under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act. 2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the elected members of Thidanadu Grama Panchayat in Kottayam District based on an election held in the year 2015. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent were elected as a candidate of Indian National Congress (INC). The Indian National Congress was a part of coalition called UDF. UDF got the majority and formed the Panchayat Board. The issue related to disqualification arose in the context of an election to the Chairman of the Development Standing Committee. The election was held on 14.02.2017. 3. The 2nd respondent moved a petition, disqualifying the petitioner, before the Election Commission alleging that the petitioner disobeyed the whip issued by the DCC President on 11.02.2017. According to the 2nd respondent, this whip was issued to the members of INC to vote in favour of the nominee of INC. The 2nd respondent was the nominee of INC. 4. The petitioner appeared to have not voted in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner denied the receipt of whip. 5. The petitioner stood as a candidate and the petitioner won the office of the Chairman of the Welfare Standing Committee. The allegation is that the 2 respondent was the nominee for the office of the Welfare Standing Committee and the petitioner was the nominee for the Development Standing Committee. However, the petitioner stood as a candidate for Welfare Standing Committee overlooking the direction of the DCC President. 6. Annexure A3 is the alleged whip. It is alleged that the petitioner received the whip. The petitioner denied the receipt of whip. There is no finding in the Election Commission's order that the whip was served on the Secretary of the local body. In the absence of any finding that the whip was served on the Secretary of the local body, that cannot be a valid service of whip. If there is no valid service of whip, a member cannot be disqualified with reference to the 2nd limb of Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act. The 2nd limb refers to the disqualification based on violating the whip. 7. If there is no valid service of whip, a member cannot be disqualified with reference to the 2nd limb of Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act. The 2nd limb refers to the disqualification based on violating the whip. 7. Then, the question arises as to whether the petitioner was aware of the decision of the party that nominating the 2nd respondent as a nominee for the Welfare Standing Committee. In the absence of any prior knowledge, one cannot hold that a member has not violated the party directives. When there is a denial of receipt of whip, there must be some concrete and cogent evidence to prove the attribute knowledge of the member. In fact, the petitioner, being a member of INC, stood as a candidate for the office of Welfare Standing Committee. There is nothing to show that the party had taken a decision and the petitioner was aware of such decision prior to the election. In the absence of any proof attributing knowledge to the petitioner as to the party's choice of candidate for the office of the Welfare Standing Committee, merely relying upon certain oral evidence of parties, the Election Commission could not have acted against the petitioner. The internal squabbles within the party often result in rushing the opponent and the party to the election commission. The Election Commission's forum cannot be used to settle the internal disputes within the party. 8. In that view of the matter, the Election Commission can only proceed to disqualify a member based on a cogent evidence as to prove that the member has voluntarily relinquished the party disobeying the directions of the party. In the light of the above, I am of the view that there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner has prior knowledge as to the nominee of 2nd respondent as the Welfare Standing Committee Chairman. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner can draw any benefits as a member, he is entitled from the Panchayat, in accordance with law.