The petitioner stands disqualified on ground of defection in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as 'the PD Act'). The order of the State Election Commission, declaring him as so disqualified, is under challenge.

2. Exts.P1 and P2 before the Election Commission stood to show that the petitioner was, even going by his own statements, part of a coalition. The United Democratic Front

- UDF, which included the Indian National Congress and the Kerala State Muslim League. The petitioner admits in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition that, he contested the election with the support of the UDF. Therefore, he is deemed to be a member of the coalition-UDF by virtue of the explanation of Section 2(ii) of the PD Act.

3. The proceedings before the Commission was initiated by the 3rd respondent, who was the President of the Panchayat, against whom a no confidence motion was carried. It was contended in the petition before the Commission that the no confidence motion was carried with the support of the writ petitioner, who voted in favour of that motion and had thus withdrawn from the coalition. The petition before the Commission was filed on 22.12.2008 alleging that it is apprehended further that the writ petitioner is likely to vote in favour of the rival coalition-LDF in the election to the President, which then stood scheduled to 30.12.2008.

4. Those served with notice of the petition before the Commission calling for appearance on 22.1.2009, the petitioner did not appear. The proceedings before the Commission concluded exparte of the writ petitioner. The Commission held that the petition before it was maintainable and that it was not shown that any direction (whip) was issued by any competent authority, in accordance with law and the writ petitioner cannot be held to have violated any such direction (whip). The Commission, however proceeded to hold that on the basis of the materials on record, it was proved that the writ petitioner had contested the election as part of the coalition-UDF and had spoken in support of the no confidence motion moved against the President, who was also a member of UDF. That no confidence motion was carried. Accordingly, the Commission held that the writ petitioner had withdrawn himself from the coalition. It was hence that the impugned order was issued.

5. The writ petitioner pleads that he was suffering from low back pain (Katteegraham), for which he has produced Ext.P1 medical certificate. This is the justification that he has to offer for non-appearance before the Commission. Taking Ext.P1 on its face value, it needs to be noted that the said certificate is only to the effect that the writ petitioner needs bed rest for seven days for better cure and he has been advised absence from duty from seven days from 18.1.2009. While the petitioner holds out that certificate in support of the plea in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition that he could not appear on 22.1.2009 before the Commission since he had been sick, the fact of the matter remains that the impugned order is issued by the Commission only on 9.6.2009 and going by the records of the Commission, as placed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for it, he was declared exparte only on 28.3.2009. Under such circumstances, I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the Commission having decided the matter exparte.

6. With the aforesaid, what calls for further examination is as to whether, the findings of the Commission are sustainable on the basis of the materials on record. Perusing the ground in the Writ Petition,, it can be seen that the specific finding of the Commission that the writ petitioner was elected with the support of the Muslim League and therefore, a member of the coalition is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Ext.P9 before the Commission – the minutes of the meeting in which the no confidence motion was discussed, proved