BEFORE THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT: SHRI.K.SASIDHARAN NAIR, STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
Thursday, the 19th
day of March 2015
O.P.Nos.40/2014, 41/2014, 42/2014, 43/2014 AND 44/2014
O.P.No.40/2014
Petitioner : Rajendran.G,
S/o Gangadharan,
Sivamangalam,
Pattamthuruthu P.O., (via) Perinadu
Kollam District. PIN 691 601.
Member, Ward No.03,
Mantrothuru Grama Panchayat
(By Adv. Panambil S.Jayakumar)
Respondent : Vijayan.A,
Member, Ward No.01,
Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat,
Kollam District, PIN-691 502.
(By Adv. S.K.Vinod)
O.P.No.41/2014
Petitioner : Rajendran.G,
S/o Gangadharan,
Sivamangalam,
Pattamthuruthu P.O., (via) Perinadu
Kollam District. PIN 691 601.
Member, Ward No.03,
Mantrothuru Grama Panchayat
(By Adv. Panambil S.Jayakumar)
2
Respondent : Sujatha.A.,
Member, Ward No.11,
Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat,
Kollam District, PIN-691 502.
(By Adv. S.K.Vinod)
O.P.No.42/2014
Petitioner : Rajendran,
S/o Gangadharan,
Sivamangalam,
Pattamthuruthu P.O., (via) Perinadu
Kollam District. PIN 691 601.
Member, Ward No.03,
Mantrothuru Grama Panchayat
(By Adv. Panambil S.Jayakumar)
Respondent : Sobha,
Member, Ward No.09,
Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat,
Kollam District, PIN-691 502.
(By Adv. S.K.Vinod)
O.P.No.43/2014
Petitioner : Rajendran,
S/o Gangadharan,
Sivamangalam,
Pattamthuruthu P.O., (via) Perinadu
Kollam District. PIN 691 601.
Member, Ward No.03,
Mantrothuru Grama Panchayat
(By Adv. Panambil S.Jayakumar)
3
Respondent : Radhakrishnan,
Member, Ward No.08,
Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat,
Kollam District, PIN-691 502.
(By Adv. S.K.Vinod)
O.P.No.44/2014
Petitioner : Rajendran,
S/o Gangadharan,
Sivamangalam,
Pattamthuruthu P.O., (via) Perinadu
Kollam District. PIN 691 601.
Member, Ward No.03,
Mantrothuru Grama Panchayat
(By Adv. Panambil S.Jayakumar)
Respondent : Subramanian.P,
Member, Ward No.12,
Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat,
Kollam District, PIN-691 502.
(By Adv. S.K.Vinod)
These petitions having come up for hearing on the 11th day of February
2015, in the presence of Adv. Panambil S.Jaya Kumar for the petitioner and
Adv. S.K.Vinod for the respondents and having stood over for consideration to
this day, the Commission passed the following.
COMMON ORDER
These are petitions filed under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Local Authorities
(Prohibition of Defection) Act for declaring that the respective respondents have
4
become subject to disqualification for being members of Mantrothuruthu Grama
Panchayat. Since these petitions have been filed by a common petitioner and
common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in all these cases, they
have been taken up jointly and O.P.No.40/2014 is treated as the main case.
2. The short facts are as follows,- The petitioner and respondents have
contested in various wards of Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat as candidates of
Indian National Congress in the General Election held in October 2010 and were
elected as members. Smt.S.Sobha belonging to Congress party was elected as
President and she was ousted from that post by passing a no confidence motion
on 24.04.2014. Fresh election to the post of President was scheduled to be held
on 19.05.2014. The Congress party as well as its parliamentary party
unanimously decided to field Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel as the candidate to
the post of President. A meeting of the Parliamentary party of all the members
belonging to Congress party was held at the DCC Office, Kollam on 18.05.2014
in the presence of Sri. M.M.Hassan, Vice President of KPCC, Sri.Sooranadu
Rajasekharan and Sri.Pratapa Varma Thampan, DCC President. The decision to
field Smt. Achiyamma Elsi Samuel was taken in that meeting unanimously. The
DCC President had given written directions to all the members including the
respondents to vote in favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel in the election
scheduled on 19.05.2014. But in violation of the said Direction, Smt.Sujatha the
5
respondent in O.P.No.41/2014 proposed the name of the respondent in
O.P.No.42/2014 and it was supported by the respondents in O.P.No.40/2014 and
the respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 had contested against the official candidate. In
the first phase of election, all these respondents voted in favour of the respondent
in O.P.NO.42/2014 and thus she secured 5 votes whereas Smt.Achiyamma Elsi
Samuel and another candidate belonging to LDF secured 4 votes each.
Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel was ousted after the draw of lots and in the next
phase of election, these respondents had abstained from voting which resulted in
the victory of Smt.Thankamani Sasidharan a member belonging to LDF. The
conduct of the respondents in disobeying the direction of the party and voting in
favour of a candidate who was not authorized by the party was only with a view
to help the rival party to get the post of President and it is a clear case of
defection which invites disqualification. The respondents had voluntarily given
up their membership from the party and they also had violated the whip issued by
the party. Hence these petitions.
3. The respondents have filed objections raising common contentions
which are in short, as follows,- The petitions are not maintainable either in law
or on facts. It is true that the President of the Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat
was ousted on account of passing a no confidence motion on 24.04.2014. The
said no confidence motion was supported by the petitioner and two other
6
members belonging to Congress party along with LDF members. But the
Congress party had decided to defeat the said no confidence motion and issued
whip to all the Congress members to vote against the same. But the petitioner
and two other members belonging to Congress party had purposefully disobeyed
the said direction and decision of the party and ousted the President by joining
with the LDF members. Therefore fresh election was notified to the said post
and the same was scheduled on 19.05.2014. The allegation that the Indian
National Congress and its parliamentary party have unanimously decided to field
Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel as official candidate of the party is totally false.
No such decision was taken. No meeting was held at the DCC office on
18.05.2014 in the presence of Sri.M.M.Hassan, Sri.Sooranadu Rajasekharan and
Sri.Pratapa Varma Thampan and no decision was taken in any such meeting. No
direction was given by the DCC President or the Congress party to vote in favour
of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel and no whip was received by the respondents in
respect of the election held on 19.05.2014. So the respondents have chosen to
vote in favour of the candidate of their option. The respondents have not
disobeyed any direction of the party nor voluntarily given up their membership
from the party. These petitions are filed only as a counter blast to the petitions
filed as O.P. Nos. 28/2014, 29/2014 and 30/2014 and these petitions are only to
be dismissed.
7
4. The evidence consists of the oral depositions of PWs1 to 5, RW1 and
Exts.P1 to P12.
5. Both sides were heard
6. The following points arise for consideration;
(i) Whether the petitions are not maintainable?
(ii) Whether Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel had contested as the official candidate of Congress party in the election to
the post of President held on 19.05.2014?
(iii) Whether the Kollam DCC President had issued direction to the respondents to vote in favour of Smt.Achiyamma
Elsi Samuel in the election held on 19.05.2014?
(iv) Whether the respondents have voluntarily given up their membership from the party or disobeyed the direction
issued by the party in respect of election to the post of
President held on 19.05.2014 as alleged?
(v) Whether the respondents have become subject to disqualification for being members of Mantrothuruthu
Grama Panchayat?
(vi) Reliefs and costs?
7. POINT No.(i) : These are petitions filed under Section 4(1) of the
Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, (hereinafter referred to
as the Act). According to the common petitioner, the respondent in
O.P.No.42/2014 contested against the official candidate of Congress party in the
election to the post of President held on 19.05.2014 and voted in favour of that
respondent by disobeying the direction and decision of the Congress party which
8
resulted in defeating the official candidate of Congress party and thus they have
committed defection. Section 3(1)(a) of the Act states that if a member of 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 or by a person or authority authorized by it in this behalf in
the manner prescribed, votes or abstains from voting in an election to the post of
President, Vice President Standing Committee Chairman of its members or on a
no confidence motion against any of them except a Standing Committee member,
then he shall be disqualified for being a member of that local authority. Section
4(1) of the Act state that if any question arises as to whether a member of a local
authority has become subject to disqualification under the provisions of this Act,
a member of that local authority or the political party concerned or a person
authorized by it in this behalf can file a petition before the State Election
Commission for decision. In the light of the rival claims, a question arises as to
whether the respondents have become subject to disqualification as provided by
Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner, being a member of the same
Panchayat in which the respondents also are members, is fully competent to file
the petitions. Moreover the petitions are seen to have been filed within the time
limit prescribed under Rule 4A(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities
(Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules. No other specific contentions are
9
raised by the respondents so as to challenge the maintainability of these petitions.
Hence I find that the petitions are maintainable. The point is answered
accordingly.
8. POINT No.(ii)to (vi): Since common questions of law and facts arise
for consideration in all these points, they are taken up together for brevity and
convenience. Certain facts are note in dispute. Out of the 13 wards in the
Mantrothuruthu Grama Panchayat, the Congress party alone secured 9 seats and
the CPI(M) secured 4 seats. After General Election Smt.S.Sobha belonging to
Congress party was elected as President. She was removed from the post of
President on account of passing the no confidence motion moved against her by
the petitioner and two others along with LDF members. For which the
respondent in O.P.No.43/2014 filed O.P.Nos.28/2014, 29/2014 and 30/2014
against this petitioner and two others. In the subsequent election to the post of
President scheduled on 19.05.2014, it is alleged that the Congress party as well as
its parliamentary party had decided to field Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel and the
DCC President had issued direction to all the Congress members including these
respondents to vote in her favour and by disobeying that decision and direction,
the respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 contested against her and all the respondents
voted in her favour and thereby they have voluntarily given up their membership
from the party and also violated the whip issued by the party. The petitioner has
10
been examined as PW1. His chief examination is by way of an affidavit,
reproducing all the allegations contained in the original petition. He has deposed
that a Congress parliamentary party of this Panchayat was convened at the DCC
office on 18.05.2014 in the presence of Sri.M.M.Hassan, Sri.Sooranad
Rajasekharan and Sri.Pratapa Varma Thampan, the DCC President and certain
other leaders and in that meeting it was decided to elect Smt.Achiyamma Elsi
Samuel as President and the DCC President had issued direction in writing in this
behalf. He has specifically stated that the said directions containing his signature
and seal was served to all the nine Congress members and the said members had
acknowledged the receipt by putting the signatures in the copies of the said
direction. He has further deposed that by disobeying the direction the
respondents have voted in favour of the respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 and thus
the official candidate and the LDF secured four votes each and in the draw of
lots, the official candidate was ousted and in the next phase of election a member
belonging to LDF found victory. Exts.P1 to P5 are the declarations filed by the
respondents as provided by Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities
(Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules. Ext.P6 is the record maintained
under Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected
Members) Rules wherein also the respondents are shown to have been elected as
members belonging to Congress party. In all these documents they have stated
11
that they are elected as members belonging to Congress party. Of course these
documents are not in dispute and the respondents have admitted that they were
elected as members belonging to Congress party. Ext.P8 is the notice given by
the Returning Officer to the petitioner in respect of the election to the post of
President scheduled on 19.05.2014 and Ext.P9 is the copy of the minutes of the
said election meeting. Ext.P7 is stated to be the photo copy of the direction in
writing issued by the DCC President to the petitioner directing him to vote in
favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel in the election Schedule on 19.05.2014
and Ext.P10 is stated to be the photo copy of such a direction issued to
Smt.O.Valsala and Ext.P12 is stated to be the direction issued by the DCC
President to Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel. In cross examination PW1 has
admitted that he and two others had voted in favour of the no confidence motion
moved against the then President and thus she was removed from that post for
which O.P.Nos.28/2014, 29/2014 and 30/2014 are pending against them. It was
suggested to PW1 in cross-examination that no meeting was convened on
18.05.2014 at the DCC office and that no direction in writing was given by the
DCC President to vote in favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel which PW1
denied and stated that such a meeting was held and direction was issued by the
DCC President. It was also suggested to PW1 in cross-examination that no
decision was taken by the Congress party in any meeting to elect
12
Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel as President which also PW1 denied. It was then
further suggested to PW1 that these cases are filed as a counter blast to the cases
filed as O.P.Nos.28/2014, 29/2014 and 30/2014 which also PW1 denied.
9. PW2 is another member of this Panchayat and she also has deposed that
the meeting of the Parliamentary party was held at DCC Office on 18.05.2014 in
the presence of Sri.M.M.Hassan, Sri.Sooranadu Rajasekharan and Sri.Pratapa
Varma Thampan, DCC President and all the Congress members participated in
that meeting and Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel was decided as the candidate for
the post of President and that the DCC President had issued direction in writing
in this behalf to all the members. Ext.P10 is stated to be the photo copy of the
whip received by her in respect of the above election. PW2 has also deposed that
the respondents have disobeyed the direction and decision of the party by note
voting in favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel and so they are no more
members of the party. In cross-examination it was suggested to PW2 that the
name of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel is seen erased in the original and it has
been re-written to which PW2 stated that a mistake crept in one letter and so the
name was erased and re-written. PW2 has stated that Ext.P10 was written by the
office Secretary and she did not see while writing the same. It was suggested to
PW2 that Ext.P10 was not a whip issued by the DCC President and it has been
fabricated on a signed blank letter pad which also PW2 denied. It was also
13
suggested to PW2 that no meeting was held on 18.05.2014 in the DCC office
which PW2 denied. She has admitted that there was minutes for the said
meeting. PW2 has also admitted that in the second phase of election, the
respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 and one Thankamani Sasidharan belonging to
LDF candidate contested and she along with the petitioner had voted in favour of
the LDF candidate and there was no decision by the party to vote in favour of an
LDF candidate. PW2 has further deposed that the DCC President had sent
mobile messages to the respondents in favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel. It
was put to PW2 in cross-examination whether she produced the records relating
to the mobile messages to which she agreed to produce the same.
10. PW3 is Sri.M.M.Hasan, KPCC Vice President and he has deposed that
a complaint from the Mantrothuruthu Congress Mandalam Committee was
received by the KPCC President and that was entrusted with him by the KPCC
President and he was authorized to enquire about the same and accordingly a
parliamentary party meeting of the Panchayat was convened on 18.05.2014 at the
DCC office and all the nine Congress members attended that meeting and after
discussion it was decided to elect Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel as President and
direction was given to all the Congress members to vote in her favour and the
DCC President was directed to issue whip to all the Congress members. Ext.P11
is stated to be the photo copy of the said complaint given by Mantrothuruthu
14
Congress Mandalam Committee President and being a photo copy it was marked
only a subject to proof. PW3 has stated that minutes was prepared regarding the
said meeting held at DCC office on 18.05.2014 and all the members who
attended that meeting had put their attendance mark in the same. It was
suggested to PW3 that no such meeting was convened and no decision was taken
to elect Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel as President which PW3 denied. PW3 has
further stated that he orally directed the DCC President to issue whip to the
members.
11. PW4 is Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel and her chief examination is by
way of an affidavit. She has deposed that in connection with the President
election scheduled on 19.05.2014, the Congress parliamentary party meeting was
convened on 18.05.2014 at the DCC office and Sri.M.M.Hassan, Sri.Sooranadu
Rajasekharan, Sri.Pratapa Varma Thampan and other party leaders were present
in that meeting and all the respondents also were present and it was decided to
elect her as President. PW4 has further deposed that the DCC President had
issued whip to all the nine Congress members present there and Ext.P12 is stated
to be the whip given to her by the DCC President. PW4 has further deposed that
in the election meeting the name of the respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 was
proposed by the respondent in O.P.No.41/2014 and seconded by the respondent
in O.P.No.40/2014 and thus the respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 contested against
15
her and all the respondents voted in favour of the respondent in O.P.No.42/2014
by disobeying the decision and direction of the Congress party. PW4 has also
deposed that LDF candidate also contested in that election and that the
respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 got five votes and she got four votes and the LDF
candidate also got four votes and in the subsequent draw of lots, PW4 was
eliminated and in the next phase of election, the candidate belonging to LDF
found victory. In cross-examination it was suggested to PW4 that there is
difference in the ink in respect of the writing contained in Ext.P12 with that of
the signature which she admitted and she stated that DCC President had given the
same to her directly. It was further suggested to PW4 that no whip was given by
the DCC President to the respondents which she denied. PW5 is the
Sasthamcotta Block Congress Committee President and he has deposed that the
parliamentary party meeting was convened at the DCC office on 18.05.2014 as
instructed by the KPCC President in which Sri.M.M.Hassan, Sri.Sooranad
Rajasekharan, Sri.Pratapa Varama Thampan and all the Panchayat members were
present and Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel was decided as the candidate for the
post of President in that meeting and whip was given by the DCC President to all
the members directly. In cross-examination PW5 has stated that minutes was
prepared for the said meeting in which he also had put his signatures. PW5 has
further deposed that in respect of the no confidence motion no whip was given by
16
the DCC President to the members. It was suggested to PW5 that no meeting
was convened on 18.05.2014 and no decision was taken to elect Smt.Achiyamma
Elsi Samuel and that no whip was given by the DCC President which PW5 has
denied.
12. The respondent in O.P.No.42/2014 as RW1 has deposed in terms of
contentions raised by her in the objection. She has deposed that in respect of the
no confidence motion moved against her, whip was given by the DCC President
to all the Congress members to vote against the same and the petitioner and two
others have violated that direction and they voted in favour of the said motion
along with the LDF members for which O.P. Nos.28/2014, 29/2014 and 30/2014
are filed against them. RW1 has further deposed that in the subsequent election
to the post of President no direction or whip was given to the members and all the
members of Congress party were allowed to vote as per their conscience and this
decision was on account of the removal of the President by certain party
members. RW1 has also deposed that after eliminating Smt.Achiyamma Elsi
Samuel in the election to the post of President, the contesting candidates were
RW1 and CPI(M) member and the petitioner and another member voted in favour
of the LDF member and thus RW1 happened to be defeated.
13. On a careful analysis of the entire facts and evidence on record it is
found that no records are produced to prove that the DCC President had issued
17
any direction to these respondents to vote in favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi
Samuel in the election held on 19.05.2014. The witnesses on the side of the
petitioner have consistently deposed that minutes was prepared regarding the
meeting held on 18.05.2014 at the DCC office. But no such record is produced .
The non production of the record relating to the meeting said to have been held
on 18.05.2014 is fatal to the petitions. The allegation of the petitioner that all the
nine members of the Congress party including these respondents had participated
in the said meeting is not at all proved by acceptable evidence. If these
respondents were present in that meeting, the petitioner could have proved the
same by producing relevant records. The oral evidence given by PWs1 to 5
cannot be considered as acceptable evidence in this respect. This is more so on
account of the reason that the petitioner has not produced any record to prove that
the DCC President had issued whip to the respondents regarding the election to
the post of President held on 19.05.2014. PW1 has categorically stated that the
respondents had acknowledged the receipt of the whip by putting the signatures
on the copies of the same. If the respondents had given any such
acknowledgments, those records could have been produced before the
Commission. The non production of the said acknowledgments would only
disprove the allegation of the petitioner regarding service of the alleged whip said
to have been issued by the DCC President. Exts.P7, P8 and P12 are of no use to
18
prove that the DCC President had issued whip to the respondents. Ext.P7 and
P10 are only photocopies. Ext.P12 is stated to be the whip given to PW4. But
none of these records have any connection with these respondents. It is relevant
to point out that as per Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities
(Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, a direction in writing, which is
commonly referred to as whip, is to be served either directly or by post or by
affixture and if it is served 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. The petitioner has no case that whip was
sent by registered post or served by affixture. At the same time the petitioner
states that it was given directly and acknowledgments were obtained. But such a
record is conspicuously absent which would mean that the petitioner has failed to
prove issuance of whip to the respondents as provided by law. In this context it
is also significant note that the petitioner has not examined the DCC President
who is the person said to have issued the direction in writing to these respondents
to vote in favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel. No explanation is offered by
the petitioner for the non examination of the DCC President. The DCC President
is the competent person rather the only person to state whether whip has been
issued to the Congress party members because admittedly, he is the person
19
competent to issue whip in his capacity as the person competent recommend
symbol to the candidates. Even PW3 has stated that DCC President is the
competent person to issue direction in writing to the members regarding voting in
the election to the post of President. So the non-examination of the DCC
President coupled with the non-production of the record relating the service of
whip to the respondents is fatal to these petitions.
14. On a careful consideration of all facts and materials on record, I find
that the petitioner has completely failed in proving that the Congress party had
decided Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel as UDF candidate to the post of President
in the election scheduled on 19.05.2014. There is no acceptable evidence to
prove that any decision in this regard was taken in the presence of the
respondents in any meeting. It is further found that no communication was given
to the respondents regarding the decision if any of the Congress party to elect
Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel as President. The allegation of the common
petitioner that whip was issued by the DCC President directing the respondents to
vote in favour of Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel in the election to the post of
President held on 19.05.2014 stands not proved in these cases. The common
petitioner has also failed in proving that the respondents have disobeyed any
decision of the Congress party or the direction of the DCC President in respect of
voting in the election to the post of President held on 19.05.2014. In the above
20
circumstances it cannot be held that the respondents have either voluntarily
abandoned their membership from the party or violated any direction in writing
issued by the DCC President in respect of voting in the election to the post of
President. Therefore the petitions deserve only dismissal. The points are
answered accordingly.
In the result, the petitions are dismissed.
The parties shall bear their respective costs.
Pronounced before the Commission on this the 19th day of March 2015
K.SASIDHARAN NAIR,
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on the side of the petitioner
PW1 : Sri.Rajendran, Sivamangalam, Pattamthuruthu P.O.
Mantrothuruthu
PW2 : Smt.Valsala, Dhanya, Villimangalam West,
Mantrothuruthu P.O.
PW3 : Sri.M.M.Hassan, Harsham, E.V.Road, Thycaud P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram
PW4 : Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel, Charuvil Bhavan,
Matrothuruthu
PW5 : Sri. Thundil Noushad, Thundil Puthen Veedu,
Sasthamcotta
21
Witness examined on the side of the respondent
RW1 : Smt. S.Sobha, Kannimel, Nenmeni, Mantrothuruthu
P.O. Kollam
Documents produced on the side of the petitioner
P1 : Copy of the declaration in Form No.2 submitted by
Sri.A.Vijayan
P2 : Copy of the declaration in Form No.2 submitted by
Smt.A.Sujatha
P3 : Copy of the declaration in Form No.2 submitted by
Smt.S.Sobha
P4 : Copy of the declaration in Form No.2 submitted by
Sri.K.Radhakrishnan
P5 : Copy of the declaration in Form No.2 submitted by
Sri.Subramanian.P
P6 : Copy of the register showing the political
affiliation of the members of Mantrothuruthu Grama
Panchayat
P7 : Copy of the whip dated 18.05.2014 issued by
Adv.G.Pratapa Varama Thampan, President, DCC
Kollam addressed to Sri.G.Rajendran
P8 : Copy of the letter No.ICDS/Eln.-442/13 dated
05.05.of the Returning Officer G-47
Muntrothuruthu Grama Panchayat addressed to
Shri.G.Rajendran
P9 : Copy of the letter No.ICDS/C1-182/2013 dated
20.05.2014 of the Returning Officer, Mantrothuruthu
Grama Panchayat
22
P10 : Copy of the whip dated 18.05.2014 issued by
Adv.G.Pratapa Varama Thampan, President, DCC
Kollam addressed to Smt.O.Valsala
P11 : Copy of the application dated 12.05.2014 given by
Shri.M.K.Suresh Babu, President Indian National
Congress (I), Mantrothuruth Mandalam Committee to
Shri.V.M.Sudheeran, KPCC President
(Subject to proof)
P12 : Copy of the whip dated 18.05.2014 issued by
Adv.G.Pratapa Varama Thampan, President, DCC
Kollam addressed to Smt.Achiyamma Elsi Samuel
Sd/-
K.SASIDHARAN NAIR,
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
Top Related