1. Petitioner who was the respondent in OP No.2/11 on the file of the 2nd respondent has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P4 order dated 5/5/2012 passed by the 2nd respondent.

2. Case of the petitioner is that she had requested the Congress President to field her as a candidate of Indian National Congress in Ward No.II of Kadamakudy Grama Panchayat. However, she was denied the seat and therefore she submitted nomination as an independent candidate. The nomination was accepted and she contested the election as an independent candidate with gas cylinder as her symbol and won with a majority of 125 votes. Thereafter, she contested the election to the post of President of the Panchayat with the support of LDF coalition and defeating the rival candidate fielded by the UDF coalition, she was elected as the President of the Panchayat.

3. The 1st respondent, the elected member from Ward No.V of the Panchayat, who is also the parliamentary party leader of UDF coalition filed OP No.2/11 under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) before the 2nd respondent seeking to disqualify the petitioner under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection reiterating her contention that she fought and won the election as an independent candidate without the support of any political party.

4. Before the 2nd respondent, on behalf of the 1st respondent, six witnesses were examined and none was examined on behalf of the petitioner. Exts.P1 to P8, X1 to X4, C1 and R1 were marked. Finally, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order holding that the petitioner contested the election as an independent candidate with the support of UDF coalition. It was held that violating the whip, with the support of LDF coalition, she contested and was elected as the President of the Panchayat and hence committed defection. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

5. The first contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that there was no pleading in Ext.P1 petition regarding the existence of a coalition as defined in the Act. In support of his plea that strict rules of pleadings will have to be insisted in an election petition, counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Chinnamma Varghese v. State Election Commission (2010(3) KLT 426). In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to make reference to the pleadings contained in Ext.P1 petition filed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P2 objection filed by the petitioner.

6. In para 2 of the petition, it is stated that "respondent is the elected member from Ward No.XI, Pizhala North, Kadamakudy Grama Panchayat in the said election. The respondent contested in the election as an independent candidate supported by UDF and belonged to UDF coalition."

It is further stated in para 3 that "2 independent candidates, including the respondent, supported by UDF also contested in the election".

In para 4, it is averred that "UDF placed its candidates in all 13 wards. 11 candidates contested as Congress (I) candidates in hand symbol. The respondent was placed by UDF in Ward No.XI as an independent candidate supported by UDF coalition".

In para 7, referring to a public meeting held on 12/10/2010, which was inaugurated by Mr.Ajay Tharayil, KPCC General Secretary, it is stated that "about 500 UDF workers attended the said meeting. The respondent who was present in the said convention was introduced to the electorate and the UDF workers as the official candidate of UDF. The respondent who attended the said meeting caused to believe the electorate and UDF workers that she is the official candidate of UDF coalition. The respondent also addressed and delivered her speech through loud speaker in the said meeting as the candidate of UDF."

Again in para 8 regarding the election convention organised by UDF on 15/10/2010, inaugurated by Mr.Mohammed Shiyas, St