parliamentary party meeting regarding the course to be adopted by the members and as such Rule 4 of the Rules have not been complied. Secondly, there is no evidence to indicate the decision of the INC party, as the minutes of the meeting was not produced. The evidence of PW2 does not speak about a decision being taken in the presence of all the members, though RW3 refers to such a decision. Thirdly, there is no evidence to prove any collusion, connivance or nexus between the appellants and LDF other than the oral testimony of PW1. It is true that without LDF support, the no confidence motion could not have been carried. But the question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said circumstance alone can be the basis of disqualfication on the ground of defection. As already held by us, there is no valid whip issued in terms of the statutory provisions. The pleading of the 2nd respondent does not disclose any decision taken by the DCC President in the presence of all the members. Therefore, when the decision of the political party in regard to the no confidence motion is so unclear on account of the facts narrated above, then the LDF members supported the no confidence motion by itself cannot be treated as a circumstance warranting disqualification. Since a common order was passed by
