JUDGMENT : Shambhu Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner was a candidate for the office of Mukhiya of Bothuna Gram Panchayat in the district of Saran. He filed his nomination paper on 3rd of February, 1970; the date fixed for the purpose, before the Circle Officer Basantpur, who was appointed to discharge the functions of the Election Officer. At the time of the scrutiny, opposite party no. 1 raised an objection that the petitioner had been fined Rs. 50/- by the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat and as he had not paid that amount, he was disqualified under Section 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 21 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule'). The objection was overruled and the nomination paper of the petitioner was held to be in ORDER :; by the" Circle Officer. Opposite party no. 1 then appealed to the Sub-divisional Officer, Siwan (opposite party no. 2) who was the Election Officer for the Gram Panchayat Opposite party no. 2 by his ORDER :dated 11-2-1970 (Annexure 5 to the petition) reversed the ORDER :of the Circle Officer and rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner. This petition challenges the aforesaid ORDER :of opposite party no. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 1. Besides challenging the other allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated therein that as opposite party no. 1 alone was left in the field, he was declared elected Mukhiya uncontested on the 11th of March, 1970, and that since after his election the remedy of the petitioner is to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal and not by a writ application. 2. Section 79 of the Act lays down the grounds on which a person can be disqualified from contesting election of a Gram Panchayat. According to Clause (k) of this section, any person who is in arrears of any tax, toll, fee or rate due from him to the Gram Panchayat for a period of three months after notice, requiring payment of such arrear, has been duly served upon him by the Gram Panchayat cannot contest the election. According to Clause (k) of this section, any person who is in arrears of any tax, toll, fee or rate due from him to the Gram Panchayat for a period of three months after notice, requiring payment of such arrear, has been duly served upon him by the Gram Panchayat cannot contest the election. Rule 21 of the Rules also reiterates what is there in Section 79(k), but further adds that where a candidate claims that a notice requiring payment of the dues has not been served upon him, he shall be given an opportunity to pay the amount due from him and upon such payment he shall not be disqualified. 3. Mr. Gupteshwar Prasad appearing for the petitioner has contended that the alleged fine imposed by the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have in arrears of any dues to the Gram Panchayat. In support of this contention he has drawn my attention to Section 16(2) of the Act which lays down that if a person to whom a notice has been served under Sub-section (1) for improvement of sanitation fails without sufficient reason to comply with the requisition made in the notice, he shall on conviction by a Bench of the Gram Cut-cherry be liable to a fine which may extend to Rs. 50/-. Annexure 6' to the petition is a copy of the ORDER :of the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat informing the petitioner that he had been fined Rs. 50/- for not stopping the flow of the drain water of his house-to a well in plot nos. 294 and 296 of the village and thereby rendering the well in sanitary. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Executive Committee under Annexure 6' purported to act under Section 16(1) of the Act, but under Sub-section (2) of that section only Gram Cutcherry could convict the petitioner and impose a fine. The Executive Committee had no jurisdiction to do it. Thus, the petitioner could not have been disqualified for not paying the fine imposed upon him by Annexure 6' by the Executive Committee. 4. Further, Clause (f) of Section 79 provides that a person can be disqualified from being a candidate for election to an office of the Gram Panchayat if he has been sentenced by a Criminal Court for a term exceeding six months. 4. Further, Clause (f) of Section 79 provides that a person can be disqualified from being a candidate for election to an office of the Gram Panchayat if he has been sentenced by a Criminal Court for a term exceeding six months. It is apparent from that Clause of Section 79 that a person cannot be disqualified for imposition of a mere fine. Therefore, even if the fine would have been imposed by the Gram Cutcherry, the petition could not have been disqualified. 5. Lastly, Mr. Prasad has contended that the fine imposed is neither a tax, nor a toll, nor a fee, nor a rate within the meaning of Clause (k) of Section 79 of the Act and for that reason also the petitioner could not be disqualified. There also appears substance in this contention. Further, there is nothing on the record to indicate that an opportunity as required by Proviso to Rule 21(1) was given to the petitioner by opposite party no. 2 to pay the dues. Thus, there can be no doubt that the ORDER :of opposite party no. 2 rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is illegal. Learned counsel for the opposite party was not able to challenge this position. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has mainly relied on existence of an alternative remedy to the petitioner before the Election Tribunal and has contended that this Court ought not to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner as he has not availed of that remedy. True it is that ordinarily this Court does not interfere, in exercise of writ jurisdiction in favour of a person who has not availed of the alternative remedy open to him, but it is now well established that existence of an alternative remedy cannot affect the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the petitioner filed his writ application before this Court on 3rd of March, 1970 before the declaration regarding election of opposite party no. 1 as Mukhiya was made on the 11th of March, 1970. Thus, on the date of his application, no alternative remedy was open to the petitioner. The application was placed for admission for some time, but that was not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. 1 as Mukhiya was made on the 11th of March, 1970. Thus, on the date of his application, no alternative remedy was open to the petitioner. The application was placed for admission for some time, but that was not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. When the application was admitted on the 8th of April, 1970 an ORDER :of stay was also passed, but that could not be effective as declaration regarding election of opposite party no. 1 as Mukhiya had already been made. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, existence of an alternative remedy ought not to stand in the way of this Court in allowing the application of the petitioner when the ORDER :passed by the opposite party no. 2 rejecting his nomination paper is patently illegal. In the result, the application is allowed and the ORDER :of opposite party no. 2 dated 11.2.1970 rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is quashed by a writ of certiorari. As a consequence to this ORDER :, the election of opposite party no. 1 as Mukhiya to the Gram Panchayat aforesaid also stands set aside. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed