( 1 ) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

" (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned declaration dated 8. 3. 2001 (Annexure-6 to this writ petition) declaring Balwant respondent No. 4 as elected pramukh Kshettra Panchayat Bhathat, district Gorakhpur ; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent not to administer oath of office to respondent No. 4 for elected post of Pramukh Kshettra Panchayat bhathat, district Gorakhpur ; (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as validly elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Bhathat, district Gorakhpur in pursuance of the declaration dated 8. 3. 2001 (Annexure-4 to this writ petition) ; (d) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case ; (e) award the costs of this writ petition. "

( 2 ) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the election process for the election of Pramukh and Up Pramukhs of Kshettra Panchayat in the district of Gorakhpur was set in motion by issuance of notification dated 1. 3. 2001. As per notified election programme, the nomination papers were to be filed on 5. 3. 2001 between 11 a. m. to 3 p. m. , scrutiny was to be done on 5. 3. 2001 after 3 p. m. , and the last date for withdrawal of nomination was 7. 3. 2001 between 9 a. m. to 1 p. m. The date of the poll, if necessary, was fixed between 10 a. m. to 3 p. m. on 8. 3. 2001 and the counting of votes and declaration of result thereafter was to take place after 3. 30 p. m. on the same day. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 being elected members of kshettra Panchayat, Bhathat, filed their nominations pursuant to the aforesaid notification dated 1. 3. 2001 for contesting the election of Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Bhathat. After verification and scrutiny of their nomination papers, they contested the election. Immediately after the polling, counting of votes was taken up. The version of the petitioner is that total 60 votes were cast out of which 13 votes were found to be invalid by the Assistant Returning officer, hence the same were not counted and thus only 47 votes which were found valid by the assistant Returning Officer were counted, out of which 25 votes were polled in favour of the petitioner and 22 votes were cast in favour of respondent No. 4 and on that basis the Assistant returning Officer, respondent No. 3 declared the petitioner as elected Pramukh of Kshettra panchayat, Bhathat and also issued declaration in Form-VIII under Rule 29 of Uttar Pradesh kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up Pramukhs and Settlement of Election disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Rules ). Consequently, the declaration of result was also communicated to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur for communicating the same to the state Election Commission and the State Government. However, this fact has seriously been disputed by the respondents and according to them the petitioner was not declared elected as provided under Rule 29 of the rules and it was only determination of result under Rule 27. Their case is that immediately after determination and pasting of result, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 4 alleging that 13 votes have wrongly been rejected and the Assistant Returning officer, therefore, forwarded the papers to the District Election Officer who immediately sent fax message to the Election Commission along with full details together with the report of the assistant Returning Officer. The Election Commission thereafter communicated its decision to the District Election Officer that 13 votes have wrongly been rejected and, therefore, directed the assistant Returning Officer to count those votes also. Accordingly, those 13 votes were recounted as valid v