IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7411 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S/GOPINATHAN, MEMBER, WARD NO.9, ARYANCODE GRAMA P ANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.J.WILFREDSON, MEMBER, WARD NO.6, ARYANCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).7411/2010 ....................... Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent in O.P.73/07 filed by the 1st respondent, disqualifying the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 is under challenge. 2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner contested the election and was elected as a member of the Aryancode Grama Panchayat as the official candidate of Congress party. Petitioner joined hands with the opposition parties (LDF) and supported the non confidence motion against the President and Vice President of the Panchayat who were the official nominees of the Congress party. The non confidence motions were carried and the President and the Vice President were voted out. Subsequently the petitioner contested as Vice President and was elected with the support of the LDF. It was thereupon that the 1st respondent filed O.P.73/07 before the 2nd respondent and the same was allowed by Ext.P1. W.P.(C).7411/10 2 3. This Court had occasion to consider orders of disqualification, passed in initial circumstances and holding that such conduct amounts to defection and is liable to be disqualified, writ petitions have been dismissed. One of the judgment is in Nazeerkhan S. v. Kerala State Election Commission and Another (2008 (3) KHC 322) which was confirmed by the Division Bench in Nazeerkhan v. Kerala State Election Commission (2009 (1) KHC 681 [DB] ). It is stated that this judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing SLP.6183/09. It is also seen that similar view has been taken by this Court in Dharma Mani v. Parassala Block Panchayat (2009 (3) KLT 29). This judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing Writ Appeal No. 795/09. 4. In view of the above judgments, Ext.P1 order is only to be confirmed and the writ petition is to be dismissed. I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs