JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8242 of 2022 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 21.03.2022, whereby the writ petition was dismissed upholding the order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission in O.P No. 31 of 2019 filed by the second respondent i.e. P.T. Eldo, a member of the Rajakumari Grama Panchayat, seeking to disqualify the appellant, as per the provisions of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (Act, 1999' for short). 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: In the General Election held to the Local Self Government Institutions during November, 2015, the appellant was elected to Ward No. 10 of Rajakumari Grama Panchayat. Since the elected President of the Grama Panchayat resigned, an election to the post of President was scheduled to be held on 17.09.2019. According to the appellant, the appellant contested election as the Candidate of Indian National Congress and she was declared elected defeating the candidate belonging to the Kerala Congress (M). 3. The respondent was elected from Ward No.9 of Rajakumari Grama Panchayat in the election held during 2nd November, 2015 and he belongs to the Indian National Congress. He filed a complaint before the Kerala State Election Commission—first respondent, as O.P. No. 31 of 2019 under Section 4 of the Act, 1999 alleging that the action of the appellant in contesting the election to the post of President of the Rajakumari Grama Panchayat was in violation of the whip issued by the President of the Idukki District Congress Committee and thus, voluntarily abandoned the membership in the party. 4. After taking evidence and hearing the parties, the Kerala State Election Commission allowed the Original Petition and declared that the appellant had voluntarily given up her membership of the political party i.e., the Indian National Congress through which the appellant was elected as a member of the Grama Panchayat. The relevant findings of the Kerala State Election Commission would be required to dispose of the appeal and they read thus: '15. The facts of the case would disclose that Rajakumari Grama Panchayat consisted of 13 wards, of which INC won 5 seats, Kerala Congress (M) won 2 seats and CPM won 6 seats. The INC and Kerala Congress (M) constituted the UDF coalition and CPI (M) constituted the LDF coalition. The facts of the case would disclose that Rajakumari Grama Panchayat consisted of 13 wards, of which INC won 5 seats, Kerala Congress (M) won 2 seats and CPM won 6 seats. The INC and Kerala Congress (M) constituted the UDF coalition and CPI (M) constituted the LDF coalition. The petitioner and the respondent were contested and elected as nominees of INC. On 17.09.2019, a meeting was scheduled for the election of President for the Panchayat and in the said meeting, the respondent with the support of LDF members contested against the UDF nominee and elected as the President. The respondent, on the other hand, disputed that no whip was served on her to cast a vote in favour of the UDF nominee and she was not aware of the whip. 16. Apparently, this is a case in which the basic issue is whether the respondent has defected by voluntarily giving up her membership of a political party and whether the act of her standing as a candidate of the rival front amounts to such a defection as provided under Section 3(1) (a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act. Section 3(1) (a) reads as follows: “3. Section 3(1) (a) reads as follows: “3. Disqualification on ground of defection.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat RaJ Act, 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 a 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 a 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 a Standing Committee; or in a voting on a no-confidence motion against any one of them expect a member of a Standing Committee; xxx xxx xxx (2) The direction in writing issued for the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) shall be given to the members concerned in the manner as may be prescribed and copy of such direction in writing shall be given to the Secretary of the Local Self Government institution concerned. (3) Where any dispute arises regarding the direction issued under this section between the political party or coalition concerned and the member authorised in this behalf as prescribed under sub-section (2), the direction in writing issued in this regard by the person authorised by the political party from time to time to recommend the symbol of the political party concerned for contesting in election shall be deemed to be valid.] Explanation.-For the purpose of this section an elected member of a local authority shall be deemed to be a member belonging to the political party, if there is any such party, by which he was |set up or given report] as a candidate for the election". 17. 17. The concept 'voluntary giving up the membership' was explained and elucidated in relation to the Act by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Varghese V.V. and Another v. Kerala State Election Commission and Another [ 2009(3) KHC 42 (DB): 2009(3) KLT 17] after considering the issue with reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi. S. Naik v Union of India [1994 KHC 633: AIR 1994 SC 1558 ]. In paragraph 7 the Division Bench held: "The expression ‘defection’ as such is not defined in the Act. Probably the expression does not require a definition since the concept is so plain. But the Legislature has left the disqualification to be decided on the defined conduct of the member. We are concerned with the conduct of voluntarily giving up membership in the political party. It is now settled law that in order to attract the disqualification on the ground of voluntary giving up membership in the political party, the elected member need not resign from the party. In Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India ( AIR 1994 SC 1558 ) it was held that voluntarily giving up membership is not synonymous with resignation. Voluntary giving up membership has a wider meaning than resignation as observed by a Division Bench of this court in Shajahan v. Chathannoor Grama Panchayat (2002 (2) KLJ 451). In Ravi S.Naik’s case the Apex Court made it clear 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 of the political party to which he belongs”. In Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya ( (2007) 4 SCC 270 ) also the Supreme Court held that it is the conduct of the elected members that is to be looked into while considering whether an elected member has become disqualified on the ground of defection based on voluntary giving up membership in the political party. In G.Viswanathan v. Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, ( (1996) 2 SCC 353 ) the Apex Court held that “the Act of voluntary giving up the membership of the political party may be either express or implied”. In G.Viswanathan v. Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, ( (1996) 2 SCC 353 ) the Apex Court held that “the Act of voluntary giving up the membership of the political party may be either express or implied”. In Faisal v. Abdulla Kunhi ( 2008 (3) KLT 534 ) a learned single Judge of this court has taken the view that the expression “voluntarily giving up membership of his political party” is not to be equated with ceasing to be a member of his party by express resignation; it is to be inferred from the conduct of the member. It was also held therein that the relevant date for deciding the question of disqualification is the date on which the member voluntarily gives up the membership.” 18. In Varghese's case (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench also observed the decision in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and others reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 [1992 KHC 694: AIR 1993 SC 412 ) whereon the principle “Loyalty to the parties is the norm and voting against the party is disloyalty' as stated in Griffith and Ryle on Parliamentary Functions, Practice and Procedure was referred to for holding “any freedom of its members to vote as they please independently of the political party’s declared policies will not only embarrass its public image and popularity but also undermine public confidence in it which, in the ultimate analysis, is its source of sustenance nay, indeed, its very survival.” Finally considering all such aspects and the object of the Act the Hon'ble Division Bench held that if a member or group of the elected members of the political party takes a different stand from that of the political party as such, and acts against the policies of the political party in which they are members, it is nothing but disloyalty. Further it was found that the moment one becomes disloyal by his conduct to the political party, the inevitable inference is that he has voluntarily given up his membership. 19. Indisputably the respondent herein, who was elected to the Rajakumari Grama Panchayat as an official candidate of INC and having continued so in the Panchayat, contested and elected as the President of the Panchayat in the election held on 17.09.2019 with the support of rival political parties. The said act of the respondent attracted the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). Indisputably the respondent herein, who was elected to the Rajakumari Grama Panchayat as an official candidate of INC and having continued so in the Panchayat, contested and elected as the President of the Panchayat in the election held on 17.09.2019 with the support of rival political parties. The said act of the respondent attracted the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). Standing in an election as a Candidate to the post of President, when admittedly there is no such mandate from the political party and then defeating the candidate, whom the competent authority of the party described and recognized as official candidate of the party, by securing the vote of the opposition can only be an act of disloyalty. Needless to say, that an action of disloyalty of such nature would amount to voluntarily giving up membership of the particular political party. Therefore the respondent had incurred the disqualification of voluntarily giving up membership in the political party. 20. However the respondent herein had raised dispute with regard to the existence of whip and the service of the whip by way of affixing at the residence. Rule 4 Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Kules provides the manner in which a political party or coalition may give "direction in writing'/whip to its members. It reads as follows: “4. The manner in which a Political party or Coalition may give direction to its members: (1) if a political party ór coalition gives any direction in respect of the casting of vote in an election or in a voting as has been mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 3, it shall be in writing and such a direction shall be given,- (i) XXX OTHER LANUGAGE (i) In the case of a member who belongs to a coalition or considered to be included in it; by the member whom the members of the said coalition and the members considered to be included in it in the local authority concerned elected for the purpose, on majority basis from among themselves. [iii)XXX [XXXX] [(2) While issuing a direction under sub -rule(1) directly, the person who gives it shall obtain a receipt from the member and while sending it by registered post it shall be done along with acknowledgment due and while effecting it by affixing it shall be done in the presence of at least two witnesses. [iii)XXX [XXXX] [(2) While issuing a direction under sub -rule(1) directly, the person who gives it shall obtain a receipt from the member and while sending it by registered post it shall be done along with acknowledgment due and while effecting it by affixing it shall be done in the presence of at least two witnesses. 4[Copy of the direction in writing shall also be given to the Secretary]" 21. RW.4 specifically provides that while issuing a direction under sub rule (1) directly the person who gives it shall obtain a receipt from the member and while sending it by registered post it shall be done along with acknowledgment due and while effecting it by affixture, it shall be done in the presence of at least two witnesses. Moreover the rule mandates to furnish a copy of whip to the Secretary Grama Panchayat. Evidently, Ext.A3 is the copy of the whip issued by the PW2 President, District Congress Committee in tune with the provisions under Clause 2 (iva) of Section 2 of the Act. It is to be noted that the competency of PW2 to issue 'direction in writing/whip by virtue of his position as the President District Congress Committee is not at all disputed by the respondent. PW5 the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat produced the Ext. Xl(ae), the copy of file relating to whip kept in the Panchayat. Besides, a reference of whip in Ext.8, the minutes of the meeting held on 17.09.2019 is also seen. PW2 had deposed that he had served the whip directly to other 4 members of INC and had entrusted the PW3 to effect the service of whip to the respondent since she has not turn up. PWI claimed that the whips were served by affixing in presence of witnesses and apart from the assertions such witnesses were examined as PW3 and PW4. RWI has deposed that she was not residing in the house seen in Ext.A4&A5 and whip is affixed in her family house. But her statements with respect to her residence are inconsistent and contradictory. At one point she admitted in cross examination that the address shown in the Ext. A1 is correct and she is still residing in that house; later she stated that she was not permanently residing there; and address of her house and family house are same. But her statements with respect to her residence are inconsistent and contradictory. At one point she admitted in cross examination that the address shown in the Ext. A1 is correct and she is still residing in that house; later she stated that she was not permanently residing there; and address of her house and family house are same. RW2 in his deposition stated that the respondent was the official candidate of UDF. But as per the Ext.8 minutes it is recorded that seconded the proposed President candidate of UDF. 22. On an evaluation of the oral evidences and materials on record as above in its entirety, it can be concluded that the respondent has a constructive knowledge of the 'direction in writing'/whip and the 'direction in writing'/whip was issued following the procedures as mandated under rule 4(2) of the Rules. Therefore the respondent is liable to be disqualified on account of disobeying the whip under the second limb of Section 3(1)(a). 23. For the aforementioned reasons the O.P. is allowed, and the respondent is declared as disqualified for being member of Rajakumari Grama Panchayath as provided by section 3 (1) (a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection)Act. The respondent is further declared as disqualified from contesting Defection) Act. The respondent is further declared as disqualified from contesting as a candidate in an election to any local authorities for a period of six years from the date as provided by the Section 4(3) of the Act. Considering the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.” 5. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the factual circumstances, the law involved in the matter, and relying upon the proposition of law laid down by this Court in various judgments, has entered into the finding that, the findings rendered by the Kerala State Election Commission, relying upon the first limb of Section 3(1) of the Act, 1999, dealing with the voluntarily giving up of the membership, are in accordance with law. Paragraph No. 12 of the judgment is relevant and it reads thus: 12. It was considering the first limb of Section 3(1) (a) with regard to the concept of voluntarily giving up of membership that Exhibit P10 order had been rendered. Paragraph No. 12 of the judgment is relevant and it reads thus: 12. It was considering the first limb of Section 3(1) (a) with regard to the concept of voluntarily giving up of membership that Exhibit P10 order had been rendered. The petitioner, who was admittedly a member of the Indian National Congress and of the UDF coalition, had admittedly contested to the post of President and had been elected as such on 17.9.2019. The rival candidate in the election was the UDF candidate. The Commission considered the material placed before it and came to a conclusion that the very act of the petitioner having contested against a candidate put up by her coalition, that is the UDF, amounts to a voluntary giving up of membership in the political party, under the flag of which she had been elected as a Member of the Panchayat. This aspect was borne out by the document produced by the parties. All the relevant documents including the minutes of the meeting held on 17.9.2019 and the open ballot were available for inspection before the Commission. It was after considering the said materials that the decision had been taken by the Commission. In a case where the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) is alleged and stands proved, I am of the opinion that any deficiency in the serving of the whip does not require to be considered and the disqualification would enure on the basis of the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) itself. In the above of the matter, I am of the opinion that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not have application in the instant case. The challenge against Exhibit P10, Therefore, fails and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 6. We have heard, learned Senior Counsel Sri. S. Sreekumar for the appellant, instructed by Adv Liji. J. Vadakedom, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Election Commission, Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan and Sri. Santhosh Mathew for the second respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 7. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge. 8. On an analysis of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1999, we find that it has got two limbs. Santhosh Mathew for the second respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 7. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge. 8. On an analysis of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1999, we find that it has got two limbs. The first limb makes it clear that if a member of a local authority belonging to any political party voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party, then he suffers disqualification on the ground of defection as is contemplated under Section 3(1)(a) and (c) of the Act, 1999, for being a member of that local body . 9. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the appellant was elected as a candidate of the Indian National Congress. However, the appellant stood as a candidate against a candidate fielded by the Kerala Congress (M), which was a constituent of the United Democratic Front which coalition contained the Indian National Congress. Therefore, it can be seen that when a candidate was fielded by the UDF to the post of President when the existing President resigned, the appellant could not have stood against a candidate fielded by the UDF. Having stood for the election to contest against a candidate of his own coalition, it can only be deemed that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party and left the UDF, which coalition elected him as a member from Ward No.10 of the Rajakumari Grama Panchayat 10. Anyhow, the Kerala State Election Commission, after assimilating the factual and legal situations, has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has voluntarily given up membership, which was re-appreciated by the learned single Judge and arrived at the conclusion that the State Election Commission was right in holding so. We need only to ascertain as to whether there is any legal infirmities or jurisdictional error on the part of the learned single Judge in exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We need only to ascertain as to whether there is any legal infirmities or jurisdictional error on the part of the learned single Judge in exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. As we have pointed out above, the question is centered around the first limb of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act, 1999, which makes it clear that if any member voluntarily gives up his membership, then he has to be necessarily disqualified on that ground irrespective of any requirement contained under the second limb of Section 3(1)(a). When the appellant stood as a candidate against the candidate fielded by the United Democratic Front, and has won the election with the support of the opposite coalition, what more evidence is required to legally presume that the appellant has given up her membership of Indian National Congress party, which was a constituent of the United Democratic Front, and therefore, in our view, the first limb clearly applies in the instant case. Above all the State Election Commission has given full opportunity to the parties to contest the proceedings by adducing evidence, and it was after providing a full-fledged hearing it has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has voluntarily given up the membership. 12. Therefore, the findings rendered by the Kerala State Election Commission, and upheld by the learned single Judge exercising the power of discretion conferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be, in any manner excessive of jurisdiction, illegal or irrational, justifying our interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Needless to say, writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.