P. C. Kunhiraman v. State Election Commission, Karimpuzha Grama Panchayath and Others (WP(C). No. 20971 of 2020; connected WP(C). Nos. 20977/2020, 21020/2020, 21035/2020)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.C.KUNHIRAMAN, MEMBER WARD NO. 18, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513, RESIDING AT PANICKERKALAM, KOTTAPURAM P.O, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.VISHNU J. SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN KUM.CHITHRA P.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.** **2 THE KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 M. CHANDRA MOHAN, MEMBER, WARD NO. 14, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD-679 513, E-MAIL ID: ddpkarimpuzhapkd@gmail.com.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM SRI.NIREESH MATHEW** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).20977/2020(V), WP(C).21020/2020(B), WP(C).21035/2020(D), THE COURT ON 09.12.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-2-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **WP(C).No.20977 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.C.KUNHIRAMAN, MEMBER WARD NO. 18, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT679 513, RESIDING AT PANICKERKALAM, KOTTAPURAM P.O, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.J.VISHNU SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN KUM.CHITHRA P.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.** - **2 THE KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 RAJARATHNAM P., MEMBER, WARD NO. 13, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD -679 513, E-MAIL ID, ddpkarimpuzhapkd@gmail.com** **BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC, K.S.E.COMM SRI.NIREESH MATHEW** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).20971/2020(V), WP(C).21020/2020(B), WP(C).21035/2020(D), THE COURT ON 09.12.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-3-** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **WP(C).No.21020 OF 2020(B)** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.C.KUNHIRAMAN, MEMBER WARD NO. 18, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT679 513, RESIDING AT PANICKERKALAM, KOTTAPURAM P.O, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.J.VISHNU SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN KUM.CHITHRA P.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.** - **2 THE KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIMPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **3 R.RADHAKRISHNAN @ UNNI, MEMBER, WARD NO.10, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD-679 513, E.MAIL ID: ddpkarimpuzhapkd@gmail.com** **BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC, K.S.E.COMM SRI.NIREESH MATHEW** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).20971/2020(V), WP(C).20977/2020(V), WP(C).21035/2020(D), THE COURT ON 09.12.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-4-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **WP(C).No.21035 OF 2020(D)** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.C.KUNHIRAMAN, MEMBER WARD NO. 18, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT679 513, RESIDING AT PANICKERKALAM, KOTTAPURAM P.O, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 513.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.J.VISHNU SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN KUM.CHITHRA P.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.** - **2 THE KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -679 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 T. UNNIKRISHNAN, MEMBER, WARD NO. 4, KARIMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPUZHA P.O, PALAKKAD -679 513, E-MAIL ID: ddpkarimpuzhapkd@gmail.com.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM SRI.NIREESH MATHEW SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).20971/2020(V), WP(C).20977/2020(V), WP(C).21020/2020(B), THE COURT ON 09.12.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-5-** ## **JUDGMENT** **[ WP(C).20971/2020, WP(C).20977/2020, WP(C).21020/2020, WP(C).21035/2020 ]** **Dated this the 9th day of December 2020** These writ petitions arise from a common order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the 1[st] respondent-Kerala State Election Commission. This Common order was passed in the original petitions filed by the writ petitioner herein as against the party respondents in all these cases. The original petitions were filed before the Kerala State Election Commission under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (for brevity, 'the Act') for declaring that the party respondents have committed defection and liable to be disqualified to continue as the members of Karimpuzha Grama Panchayat. The petitions have been rejected by the common order impugned in the writ petitions. 2. The writ petitioner and the party respondents **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-6-** were elected as the members of the Karimpuzha Grama Panchayat based on the election held in November 2015. They were elected as the candidates of Indian National Congress (INC). INC was a part of coalition called United Democratic Front (UDF). Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) was the other constituent of UDF. UDF got majority seats to form a board. Smt.Sheeba Pattathodi from IUML was elected as the 'President'. Sri.Rajarathnam P., one of the party respondents herein elected as the 'Vice President'. The case related to the disqualification arisen in the context of no-confidence motion moved against the President of the Panchayat, Smt.Sheeba Pattathodi. The no-confidence motion was moved by the Left Democratic Front (LDF), an opposite coalition. The no-confidence motion was tabled for a discussion on 27.09.2019. The case put forward against the party respondents by the petitioner was that the party respondents supported the no-confidence motion defying the whip issued by the District Congress Committee **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-7-** President (DCC President). 3. The whips were sent to the respondents by registered post. Admittedly, the whips were delivered only on 28.09.2019. Therefore, this case does not attract the second limb of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act, which refers to disqualification for defying the whip of a political party. The only surviving question that can be considered by the Election Commission was based on the ground of disqualification for voluntarily giving up of the membership of the political party, as referred to in the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. 4. The Election Commission did not consider the question under the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act finding that the petitioner failed to put forward a case under the first limb of section 3(1)(a) of the Act. In view of nonservice of whip on the party respondents, the Election Commission rejected the petition with reference to the second limb of section 3(1)(a) of the Act. **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-8-** 5. Challenging the order of the Election Commission, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.George Poonthottam argued the case _in extenso_ with reference to the first limb of section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, referred to the pleadings and evidence, and argued that the petitioner had made out a case with reference to the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) for disqualifying the party respondents. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, defending the order, submitted that this Court cannot interfere with the finding of facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission, Sri.Murali Purushothaman, also submitted that merit review of the decision of the Election Commission is not possible under law. 7. Having gone through the pleadings and evidence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, in fact, projected ## **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-9-** a case for disqualification under the first limb of Section 3(1) (a) as well. It was specifically pleaded in each petitions that the party respondents voluntarily abandoned the membership of the congress party. Therefore, finding that the petitioner had not put forward a case under the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) is legally unsustainable. 8. In view of the fact that the pleadings and evidence forms part of the record, nothing prevents this Court from examining the case put forward by the petitioner relatable to the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. 9. The first limb of Section 3(1)(a) refers to disqualification for voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party. Even if the whip was not served, if the party respondents were aware of the decision of the party as to the stand taken by the party on no-confidence motion and that has been violated, necessarily, it will attract the ground for disqualification under the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). I would have remitted the matter back, if there are sufficient **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-10-** materials placed by the petitioner in making out a case for consideration under the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). However, in this case, except the oral testimony of DCC President before the Election Commission, no other evidence was adduced to prove that the party respondents were aware of the decision of the political party. 10. According to the DCC President, a decision was taken to abstain from the no- confidence motion tabled on 27.09.2019 and that was communicated through the whip. If the congress party had taken such a decision, and the party respondents were aware of such decision, no doubt, the party respondents are liable to be disqualified for violating the directives of the party. Here, in this case admittedly, the party respondents supported the no-confidence motion moved. 11. The no-confidence motion was moved against the President of the Panchayat. The President of the Panchayat is from a different political party. The Party respondents are **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-11-** also from different political parties. However, the different political parties are part of the coalition. A member of the political party has every right to express his dissent against a nominee of his own political party or as against a nominee of party that is forming part of the coalition. Voluntarily giving up of membership, as referred under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, arises in the context only when a member of political party disassociate himself with such political party. If a political party had taken a decision and the member acted against such decision of the political party, certainly, the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) would attract in such matter. No decision of the political party was placed before the Election Commission. DCC President's oral evidence has no significance, unless it is supported by a decision of the political party. The political party means a group of people organized based on a shared ideology. The office bearers of a political party are only representatives of the political party. A president or Secretary cannot be considered as a **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-12-** political party to attract the ground for disqualification under the first limb of section 3(1)(a) of the Act. One of the party respondents, Sri.Rajarathnam P. is also, admittedly, the Secretary of DCC. The Party respondents denied the decision taken by the political party. Therefore, in the absence of any decision taken by the political party and conveying the same to the members of such party, the court cannot hold that there was any worth evidence to attract the ground for disqualification under the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India [(1994) Supp. 2 SCC 641]** and the judgment dated 29.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.20257 of 2015, and argued that the moment the members of a political party has become disloyal to the political party by their conduct, that would attract the ground for disqualification referable to the first limb of section 3(1)(a). ## **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-13-** It is further argued that mode of taking decision by a political party cannot be understood in like manner the decision taken by a Company or any legal entity. It is submitted that testimony of DCC President cannot be brushed aside, merely for the reason of non-production of the minutes of the meeting. 13. The learned Counsel for the party respondents, placing reliance on the judgments in **Chinnamma Varghese v. State Election Commission of Kerala, Tvm. and Another [2010 KHC 655], Babychan Mulangasseri v. State Election Commission [2013 (3) KLT 633], Joseph K.M. v. Babychan Mulangasseri and Others [2015 (1) KHC 111],** the judgment dated 04.10.2010 in W.A.No.2324/2009 and also a Division Bench judgment in **Sandeep M.T. and Others v. Kerala State Election Commission and Others [2015 (5) KHC 133 (DB)]** , argued that merely because a member expresses no-confidence motion on the leader of a political party, that will not attract disqualification under **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-14-** the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). The learned counsel further argued that the directions issued by the whip, to abstain from the meeting, cannot be treated as a whip at all. The learned counsel referred to the meaning of 'direction in writing' as referred under Section 2(iv a) and submitted that a direction not to attend the meeting is against the duties attached to a member under the relevant statutory provisions. 14. The political parties, though function through office bearers; in democratic scheme in which the political party operates, differences of opinion is bound to happen as inner party democracy of a political party. The differences of opinion within the party itself, cannot be a cause of action for disqualification. The forum of Election Commission cannot be chosen to settle such dispute. It is only when a stand is taken against the decision of the political party, grounds for disqualification is attracted under the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). There must be an evidence against a **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-15-** member to show that he has wilfully disobeyed the decision of the party to attract the ground for disqualification. It is only when a member stands against the collective will of the party, the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) is attracted. DCC President's oral testimony may be the decision of the political party. However, nothing was available to hold that it was conveyed to the party respondents. When service of whip is denied, there must be a strong evidence to prove the knowledge of the decision of the party with the party respondents, the Election Commission perhaps for this reason took the view that the petitioner failed to put forward a case under the first limb of Section 3(1)(a). Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, all these writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. **Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE** akv **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-16-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20971/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POLITICAL ALLIANCE REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WHIP DATED 21.09.2019 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 23.09.2019.** **EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY MANIFEST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING MINUTES OF THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION HELD ON 27.09.2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 35 OF 2019 EXCLUDING ANNEXURES, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION DATED 03.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.P. NO.35 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 3860/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE PETITIONER AS PW1 IN O.P.32/2019 DATED 26.02.2020. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM DCC PRESIDENT AS PW2 DATED 19.06.2020. EXHIBIT P8 B TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROMTHE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN AS RW1 DATED 12.08.2020. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.09. 2020 IN O.P.NO. 35 OF 2019.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-17-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20977/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POLITICAL ALLIANCE REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WHIP DATED 21.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 23.09.2019. EXHIBIT P3 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY MANIFEST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING MINUTES OF THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION HELD ON 27.09.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 32 OF 2019 EXCLUDING ANNEXURES, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION DATED 03.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.P. NO. 32 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2020 IN WPC NO. 3860/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE PETITIONER AS PW1 IN O.P. 32/2019 DATED 26.02.2020. EXHIBIT P8 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM DCC PRESIDENT AS PW2 DATED 19.06.2020. EXHIBIT P8 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN AS RW1 DATED 12.08.2020. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2020 IN O.P. NO. 32 OF 2019.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-18-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21020/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POLITICAL ALLIANCE REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WHIP DATED 21.09.2019 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 23.09.2019 EXHIBIT P3 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY MANIFEST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING MINUTES OF THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION HELD ON 27.09.2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.33 OF 2019 EXCLUDING ENCLOSURES, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION DATED 03.10.2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN OP NO.33 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2020 IN WPC NO.3860/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE PETITIONER AS PW1 IN OP 32/2019 DATED 26.02.2020 EXHIBIT P8 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM DCC PRESIDENT AS PW2 DATED 19.06.2020 EXHIBIT P8 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM 3RD RESPONDENT IN AS RW1 DATED 12.08.2020 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2020 IN OP NO.33 OF 2019 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE **WP(C).No.20971 OF 2020 & Con.Cases** **-19-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21035/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POLITICAL ALLIANCE REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WHIP DATED 21-09-2019 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 23-092019 EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY MANIFEST ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING MINUTES OF THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION HELD ON 27-09-2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 34 OF 2019 EXCLUDING , FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION DATED 03-10-2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.P NO. 34 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-02-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 3860/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE PETITIONER AS PW1 IN O.P 32/2019 DATED 26-022020 EXHIBIT P8A TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM DCC PRESIDENT AS PW2 DATED 19-06-2020 EXHIBIT P8B TRUE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN AS RW1 DATED 12-08-2020 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-09-2020 IN O.P NO. 34 OF 2019** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE