The High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, unless there are compelling reasons or extraordinary circumstances that warrant the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is this:--The petitioner Kalka Prasad and the respondent no. 3 Badamsingh were candidates for the office of the Panchas to Devri Kalan gram Panchayat. The election was scheduled to take place on 17-5-1970 for which the petitioner was allotted the symbol of Bullock and the respondent No. 3 badamsingh the symbol of scales (annexure A-1 ). According to sub-rule (5) of rule 30 of Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1963, the allotment of symbol is final. The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 badamsingh canvassed on the basis of these symbols. The pamphlet distributed by the respondent No. 3 Badamsingh was as per Annexure A-2. In the election, the symbol of Bullock polled 46 votes while the symbol of scale 32 votes. The petitioner who was allotted the symbol of bullock ought to have been declared elected but the Election Officer, respondent No. 1 declared respondent No. 3 badamsingh elected treating his symbol as bullock, which was wholly illegal, unwarranted and ultra vires of the provisions of law. Hence this petition for writ of certiorari for quashing the election of the respondent No. 3 Badamsingh.

( 3 ) BADAMSINGH, respondent No. 3 did not file any return.

( 4 ) ELECTION Officer, respondent No. 1 and the Collector, respondent No. 2 admitted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 Badamsingh were allotted the symbols of builock and scale respectively but denied that the election officer effected any change or unauthorisedly declared the respondent No. 3 Badamsingh elected treating his symbol as bullock. They contended that the Polling and the presiding Officers were necessary parties to the petition and since they have not been joined, the petition was incomplete. They contended that the petitioner raised no objection nor lodged any complaint with the Polling or Presiding Officer before or after the election. They asserted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an election petition and since he did not avail of that remedy, he was not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court.

( 5 ) THE point for decision is whether this Court could entitle the writ petition Under article 226 of the Constitution when the petitioner has not availed of the remedy provided under Section 357 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act.

( 6 ) HAVING heard Shri H. G. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Shri J. P. Shrivastava, counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, we are of the view that the petition must be dismissed.

( 7 ) SECTION 357 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act runs as under;--"357. Election petition:-- (1) No election or co-option notified under sections 20, 113, 170 and 216 shall be called into question except by a petition presented to the prescribed authority. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within fourteen days from the date on which the election or co-option was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such summary procedure as may be prescribed. "( 8 ) _the law relating to the Election Petition in respect of election and co-option of the Gram Panchayats is contained in Section 357 of the Panchayats Act, 1962 and madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962. The election in this case was held on 17-5-1970 and it was not disputed that an election petition before the prescribed authority was not filed within 14 days of the election as required by sub-section (2) of Section 357 of the Act. The writ petition was filed on 18-7-1970 long after the prescribed period of limitation for election petition had expired. It is apparent that the petitioner did not avail of the special remedy provided for in the Act and desired that this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the constitution of India. We will first advert