JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against declaration of the result of election to the membership of Roorkee Municipal Board, district Saharanpur from Ward No. 6 and the notification issued by the Government notifying the election of Ram Swaroop and Chaman Lal, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 as the duly elected members of the said Board. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the declaration of the result by the Returning Officer and his order dated 1st June, 1971 and also the notification of the State Government dated 7th June, 1971. A writ of mandamus has also been claimed directing respondent No. 6 Returning Officer, to declare the petitioner a duly elected member of Municipal Board, Roorkee. 2. General Election for constituting Municipal Board, Roorkee in the district of Saharanpur was held in May, 1971 in accordance with the provisions contained in the U.P. Municipalities Act and the Rules framed thereunder. There were six contesting candidates from Ward No. 6 which was a double member constituency, one seat reserved to scheduled caste candidates while the other was a general seat. Out of the six contesting candidates, Chaman Lal, Ram Swaroop and Lal Singh were scheduled caste candidates, who contested for the reserved seat while the remaining three, namely, the petitioner, Jitendra Singh and Balbir Singh contested for the general seat. The poll took place on 30th May, 1971 and the counting of votes was done on 31st May, 1971. After the counting, the contesting candidates were found to have received votes in the following manner :- 1. Chaman Lal, Scheduled caste...986 2. Shiam Lal .. 929 3. Jitendra Singh ..761 4. Ram Swarup Scheduled caste .. 593 5. Balbir Singh .. 138 6. Lal Singh .. 6 The Assistant Returning Officer, respondent No. 6, declared Chaman Lal and Ram Swarup both belonging to scheduled caste, elected to the membership of the Board. After Form 17 prescribed under the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1964 was prepared and the result was declared the petitioner Sham Lal raised an objection before the Assistant Returning Officer that he had made a mistake in declaring the result of the general seat first and then declaring the result of the reserved seat. After Form 17 prescribed under the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1964 was prepared and the result was declared the petitioner Sham Lal raised an objection before the Assistant Returning Officer that he had made a mistake in declaring the result of the general seat first and then declaring the result of the reserved seat. He claimed declaration in his favour on the basis of the highest number of votes polled by him amongst the contesting candidates for the general seat. The Assistant Returning Officer adjourned the hearing for 1st June, 1971. On that date he heard arguments and then passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's objection. The Assistant Returning Officer thereupon prepared proforma VIII prescribed under the said Order and reported the result of the election to the State Government, consequently the impugned notification was issued by the State Government notifying the election of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from Ward No. 6 of the Board. The petitioner has challenged the validity of election of Ram Swarup, a scheduled caste candidate to the seat reserved for the general candidates. 3. Elections for the membership to the Municipal Board are held in accordance to the provisions contained in the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Sec. 13-G of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , empowered the State Government to make provisions by means of orders with respect to the matters relating to the conduct of elections, including the scrutiny and account of votes, recounts of votes and the procedure to be followed in the case of equality of votes and declaration of results. In exercise of the powers under Sec. 13-G of the Act. State Government has framed the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Order, 1964, making detailed provisions for the conduct of the elections of members to the Municipal Boards. The provisions contained in the said Order have statutory force, Part VII of the Order contains provisions for counting of votes and declaration of results. Para. 66 of the Order prescribes form 17 which the Returning Officer is required to prepare and certify after the counting of votes is completed. The form contains the name of the candidates, the number of valid votes given to each candidate, total number of valid votes ballot papers, the number of rejected ballot papers and the name or names of the candidates elected. The form contains the name of the candidates, the number of valid votes given to each candidate, total number of valid votes ballot papers, the number of rejected ballot papers and the name or names of the candidates elected. Paragraph 67 lays down procedure for determining the result of election in the event of there being equality of votes. Paragraph 68 of the Order lays down procedure for declaration of result of scheduled caste candidates. Paragraph 69 requires the Returning Officer to report the result to the State Government which is notified in the Gazette under Paragraph 70 of the Order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Assistant Returning Officer committed an error apparent on the face of record in declaring Chaman Lal and Ram Swarup as duly elected members from Ward No. 6. According to the learned counsel, mandatory provisions contained in Paragraph 68 of the Order regulating procedure for declaration of the result was not followed as a result of which Ram Swarup, who had obtained only 593 votes was declared elected. Learned counsel has further urged that the Assistant Returning Officer in his order dated 1st June, 1971 admitted that he had committed a mistake but even then he refused to correct that mistake thereby he failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. The election of Ram Swarup, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is null and void and cannot be upheld on any grounds whatsoever. 5. The questions which have been debated before me by the learned counsel for the parties require interpretation of Paragraph 68 of the said Order, which runs as under: "68. DECLARATION OF RESULT - (1) When the counting of votes has been completed the Returning Officer shall, where no seats are to be filled by members of the Scheduled caste, declare as many candidates securing the highest number of votes as there are seats to be filled to be duly elected. (2) Where one or more seats are reserved for members of the Scheduled caste, the Returning Officer shall first declare those candidates who being members of the Scheduled Castes, secure the largest number of votes to be duly elected to fill the reserved seats and then declare such of the remaining candidates as have secured the largest number of votes to be duly elected to fill the remaining seats. ILLUSTRATION - At an election in a ward to fill four seats of which two are reserved there are six candidates A, B, C, D, E and F and they secure votes in descending order. A securing the largest number, B, C and D are qualified to be chosen to fill the reserved seats, while A, E and F are not qualified. The Returning Officer will first declare B and C duly elected to fill the two reserved seats and then declare A and D (not A and E) to fill the remaining two seats: Provided that upon the application of any candidate or his election or counting agent on his behalf a total or partial recount shall be made before the Returning Officer makes the declaration of results, but the Returning Officer may reject any such application as may appear to him to be frivolous or unreasonable, recording at the same time the grounds for such rejection." 6. The above provision of the Order enjoins upon the Returning Officer to declare as many candidates securing highest number of votes as there are seats to be filled, in a case where no seats are reserved for scheduled castes. Thus in a constituency where there are two seats and none of them is reserved for scheduled castes the Returning Officer is to ascertain in the highest number of votes polled by two candidates and to declare them as duly elected members. In a case of double member constituency where one seat is reserved for scheduled castes, clause (2) of Paragraph 68 of the Order enjoins upon the Returning Officer to declare the result of the scheduled caste seat first and then to declare the result of the remaining seat. The Returning Officer in such a case is required at first to ascertain the highest number of votes polled by the candidate belonging to the scheduled castes and contesting as such. After he has ascertained the highest number of votes polled by such a candidate, he is required to declare that candidate as duly elected to fill the seat reserved for scheduled caste, and thereafter he is required to ascertain as to which of the remaining candidates has secured the largest number of votes and thereupon he is to declare such candidate to fill the other seat. 7. 7. The provisions contained in Paragraph 68 (2) and the illustration thereof make it amply clear that the Returning Officer must follow the procedure provided therein otherwise the entire election would be vitiated. The provisions contained in clause (2) of Paragraph 68 are mandatory and failure of the Returning Officer to comply with those provisions would render the declaration of result illegal. Scheduled castes belong to the backward class of our society. Under the Constitution special provisions have been made to safeguard the interest of scheduled castes. The Legislature thought it proper to reserve seats for scheduled caste candidates in order to ascertain representation for scheduled castes on the civil boards. The intention behind paragraph 68 was that the result of the election to the scheduled caste seat should be determined first on the basis of number of votes polled by each of the scheduled caste candidates contesting as such for the said reserved seat, and only there-after the result of the election to the other seats should be determined; so that the candidates polling highest number of votes among the scheduled caste candidates are declared elected irrespective of the fact that there may be other contesting non-scheduled caste candidates who may have polled more votes than the scheduled caste candidates. After the declaration of the result for the seats reserved for scheduled castes, the Returning Officer is to ascertain as to which of the remaining candidates has secured the largest number of valid votes, and in doing that he is required to take into account the votes polled by all the remaining candidates including scheduled castes and non-scheduled caste candidates. If the Returning Officer finds that another scheduled caste candidate has polled largest number of valid votes then he is required to declare him, elected to the remaining seat and thus in a particular case both the seats may be filled by scheduled caste candidates, but that would not be against the provisions contained in the Act and the Order. The Procedure laid down in the paragraph 68 ensures the declaration of the scheduled caste candidate to the reserved seat. If that procedure is not followed a situation may arise when the candidates not belonging to scheduled castes may be declared elected to both the seats. If that be so. it would defeat the provisions of the Act and the policy behind the reservation of seats for scheduled castes. If that procedure is not followed a situation may arise when the candidates not belonging to scheduled castes may be declared elected to both the seats. If that be so. it would defeat the provisions of the Act and the policy behind the reservation of seats for scheduled castes. 8. In the present case there were three candidates who were contesting for the scheduled caste seats as such, namely, Chamanlal, opposite party No. 2, Ram Swarup, opposite party No. 1 and Lal Singh, Opposite Party No. 5 Chaman Lal had secured 986, the highest number of valid votes. Ram Swarup, Opposite Party No. 1 had secured 593 votes while Lal Singh polled only 6 valid votes. In accordance to the provisions of paragraph 68 of the Order, Returning Officer should have determined the result of the scheduled caste candidates seats first and if that were to be done, out of the three scheduled caste candidates, Chaman Lal was entitled to be declared first as duly elected to the reserved seat and thereafter Shiamlal, the petitioner, who had obtained 929 votes, the next highest valid vote was entitled to be declared elected to the remaining seat. Ram Swarup could have been entitled to be declared elected for the other seat only in case he had polled more votes than Shiamlal. Admittedly, Shiamlal polled 929 votes while Ram Swarup polled only 593 votes, therefore, by no stretch of imagination Ram Swamp opposite party No. 1, could be declared elected for the remaining seat from ward No. 6. The Assistant Returning Officer, opposite party No. 6 committed an error apparent on the face of record in declaring Chaman Lal and Ram Swarup elected to the two seats of Ward. No. 6. 9. It appears that the declaration of Ram Swarup was made in inadvertently due to mistake, as would be clear from the order of the Assistant Returning Officer dated 1st June, 1971 (Annexure `B' to the petition) . The Assistant Returning Officer stated in his order that admittedly an error had been committed by him in declaring the result of the election. The Assistant Returning Officer stated in his order that admittedly an error had been committed by him in declaring the result of the election. He observed that none of the parties before him questioned the commission of the error by him, with the result all the contesting candidates before the Assistant Returning Officer agreed that a mistake had been committed by the Assistant Returning Officer in declaring Chaman Lal and Ram Swarup elected, to the Board from Ward No. 6 whereas Chaman Lal and Shyam Lal were entitled to be declared elected. Although the Assistant Returning Officer as well as contesting candidates before him no doubt admitted the error but the Assistant Returning Officer became overconscious in refusing to correct the mistake committed by him. According to the Assistant Returning Officer if he was to correct the mistake pointed out to him, he would have committed another mistake, and as such, he was of the opinion that he should not commit another mistakes to undo a mistake. He refused to correct the mistake and thereafter signed proforma VIII declaring Chaman Lal and Ram Sawrup duly elected members. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Assistant Returning Officer had jurisdiction to correct the mistakes which was obvious on its face and in refusing to correct the same the Assistant Returning Officer failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. There is considerable force in this contention. The Assistant Returning Officer in conducting the counting and declaring the result of the election was performing an administrative function. It is a well established principle that an authority discharging administrative functions has power to review its orders. No specific power is required to be conferred on such an authority for this purpose. The provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act confer ample jurisdiction on an administrative authority to amend, vary or rescind its orders. The principle laid down in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is of general application and there is no reason why the Assistant Returning Officer could not review his order passed by him under a mistake. In case of an authority discharging quasi-judicial functions, different considerations may arise, as no quasi-judicial authority has any inherent power to review its orders unless so empowered expressly or impliedly by an Act or Rules. In case of an authority discharging quasi-judicial functions, different considerations may arise, as no quasi-judicial authority has any inherent power to review its orders unless so empowered expressly or impliedly by an Act or Rules. But an Administrative Authority exercising administrative powers has full jurisdiction to correct mistakes committed by it suo-moto or at the instance of any party. Besides, that whenever a mistake is committed by an administrative authority, it would be in public interest to correct the same as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid perpetration of injustice. 11. In the instant case only form 17, prescribed under paragraph 66 of the order had been filled up, the result of the election had not been reported to the State Government as required by paragraph 68 nor the result of the election had been notified. The mistake had been pointed out to the Returning Officer immediately after he had prepared the return in form 17, prescribed by paragraph 66 of the Order. There is no statutory provision in the U.P. Municipalities Act or in the said Order taking away the jurisdiction of Returning Officer to correct any error or mistake committed by him. The error was obvious on the face of it, the Assistant Returning Officer, therefore, in my opinion, had jurisdiction to correct that mistake. In refusing to correct the error committed by him, the Assistant Returning Officer failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law. 12. As already noted on the report made by the Assistant Returning Officer, the State Government notified Chaman Lal and Ram Swarup as duly elected members from Ward No. 6 to the Municipal Board Roorkee by means of Notification dated 7th June, 1971. The State Government was impleaded by means of an amendment application and relief has been claimed by the petitioners for quashing that notification. Notice of the writ petition was served on the State Government as well as on the Assistant Returning Officer but no one has appeared to contest the writ petition. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel Sri V.K. Mehrotra made a statement before me that the State Government was not interested in defending its notification dated 7th June, 1971. Notice of the writ petition was served on the State Government as well as on the Assistant Returning Officer but no one has appeared to contest the writ petition. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel Sri V.K. Mehrotra made a statement before me that the State Government was not interested in defending its notification dated 7th June, 1971. The Notification issued by the State Government notifying the result of the election is in consequence of the report of the election by the Assistant Returning Officer, which, as discussed above, was wholly erroneous and illegal on its face. Therefore, the notification dated 7th June 1971 is also liable to be quashed. 13. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents raised objection to the maintainability of the writ petition itself. He has urged that once the result of an election is declared and notified the only remedy available under the law for questioning the election is by means of filing an election petition as contemplated in Section 19 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, during the pendency of the writ petition before this court, the petitioners filed an election petition questioning the election of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, thus the petitioner is already persuing his alternative remedy, therefore no relief should be granted to him by this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution. 14. It is a well settled principle that power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised by the High Court in a case where alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and more so in a case where such alternative remedy is being persued by him. Petitioner is not entitled to persue alternative remedy together with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. Under such circumstances a petitioner is generally directed to avail his remedy before the alternative form prescribed by the law. The existence of an alternative remedy, however, does not take away the jurisdiction of this court to grant relief to a petitioner in a suitable case. The rule that no relief should be granted to a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution if an alternative remedy available under the law has not been availed of by him is not an absolute rule. The rule that no relief should be granted to a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution if an alternative remedy available under the law has not been availed of by him is not an absolute rule. The said rule is a self imposed restriction which provide criterion for exercise of discretion by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court has full jurisdiction and possess ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with any order if it is satisfied that there are circumstances which would justify interference even though an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. It would be a sound exercise of discretion to grant relief to a petitioner in a case where there are no disputed questions of fact, no controversy which may require long and elaborate arguments and there is an error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order. 15. The Supreme Court has no doubt more than once held that the validity of an election to the State Legislature or to the Parliament cannot be questioned before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner should question the validity of the election by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal. But the above declaration of law by the Supreme Court is applicable only to the case of elections to the State Legislature and Parliament held under the provisions of Representation of peoples Act. Article 320 of the Constitution itself lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, no election to the Parliament or to the State Legislature shall be called in question except by an election petition presented before an authority provided for under the law made by the Parliament. The powers exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution are, therefore, not assailable to the High Court in a writ petition questioning the election of a person to the State Legislature or to the Parliament. No such consideration, however; arise for questioning the election of a person as a member of the Municipal Board. The powers exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution are, therefore, not assailable to the High Court in a writ petition questioning the election of a person to the State Legislature or to the Parliament. No such consideration, however; arise for questioning the election of a person as a member of the Municipal Board. The powers conferred upon High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide and there is no other provision in the Constitution like Article 320 to limit or restrict the powers of the High Court in entertaining petitions or granting reliefs in the matters arising out of the elections of Municipal Boards. This Court is, therefore, invested with ample powers and jurisdiction to entertain petitions and to grant relief in a suitable case and the mere existence of alternative remedy is no bar to the exercise of such jurisdiction. 16. It is significant to note that in the present case, facts are not disputed. The Assistant Returning Officer committed a mistake in declaring Ram Swarup, as duly elected although he had admittedly polled lesser number of votes than the petitioner. This position was not disputed before the Assistant Returning Officer nor it has been disputed before me. Even the interpretation of paragraph 68 (2) of the Order has not been disputed. It is, therefore, clear that Ram Swarup was not entitled to be declared elected and due to the mistake committed by the Assistant Returning Officer he has been declared elected although Shyam Lal was entitled to be declared elected. Under these circumstances, what useful purpose will be served if the petitioner is directed to pursue his remedy before the Election Tribunal by means of an election petition. In my opinion, it would be an empty formality to direct him to pursue the matter before the Election Tribunal. If the petitioner was to be directed to pursue his remedy before an election tribunal, respondent Ram Swarup who admittedly is not entitled to hold the office will be allowed to continue in office and that would be against law as well as against public interest. Ram Swarup does not represent the will of the electorate, therefore, he is not entitled to continue as a member. Ram Swarup does not represent the will of the electorate, therefore, he is not entitled to continue as a member. I am conscious that the right to be a member of Municipal Board is not a fundamental right, it is a statutory right created by the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and, therefore, normally the petitioner should have sought his remedy before the forum provided for that purpose by the Act itself. The legislative intent is also clear that election process should not be interfered with by any court of law or authority and elections should be questioned only in the manner provided under the Act before an election tribunal. No suit or proceeding is permissible questioning elections. the provisions contained in the U.P. Municipalities Act, however, cannot take away or affect the jurisdiction of this Court to issue writs, order or direction in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter arising out of elections conducted under the U.P. Municipalities Act. As already observed there are no fetters on the exercise of power by this Court like those placed by Article 329 of the Constitution, Having, regard to the special circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to relief. I am satisfied that if the petitioner was to pursue his remedy before the election tribunal, cause of justice shall not be advanced and a person who is admittedly holding office illegally shall be allowed to continue in office. 17. As regards the filing of the election petition during the pendency of the writ petition before this court, is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner has given an explanation which appears to be very natural and convincing. According to him during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner was advised that in case the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground of an alternative remedy, the petitioner would be left with no remedy as limitation for filing election petition was expiring. Faced with that situation, the petitioner in order to take precaution and safeguard his rights, filed election petition questioning the election of Ram Swarup, but till the date of hearing of this petition, no election tribunal was constituted and no notice had been issued to the parties. The explanation given by the petitioner is plausible and satisfactory. 18. Faced with that situation, the petitioner in order to take precaution and safeguard his rights, filed election petition questioning the election of Ram Swarup, but till the date of hearing of this petition, no election tribunal was constituted and no notice had been issued to the parties. The explanation given by the petitioner is plausible and satisfactory. 18. Since the question involved in the present petition is not based on an disputed question of fact nor any question of law or fact is required to investigated by the election tribunal, it would be a mere formality to ask the petitioner to pursue his election petition before the tribunal. In the special circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not disentitled to relief from this Court in view of his filing the election petition. Similar view was taken by the Punjab High Court in the case of Deshraj v. Gurnam Singh, 1966 Doabia's Election Cases page 197, and Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1966 Doabia's Election Cases page 235. 19. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has then urged that since all election petition has been filed by the petitioner, a valuable right has accrued to respondent Nos. I and 2 to take recriminatory proceedings against the petitioner under Section 21 of the U.P. Municipalities Act on the ground that the petitioner has committed corrupt practices as a result of which he is not entitled to be declared elected even if the respondent selection was found to be invalid. In the first place the petitioner has merely filed his election petition, no election tribunal has been constituted as yet and no notice of the election petition has been served on the respondents. The stage for filing recriminatory proceedings under Section 21 of the Act has, not arised as yet. Then there is no material before me to show that there is any allegation of corrupt practice against the petitioner made by the contesting respondents. Reliance has been placed on Paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit of Ram Swarup, which makes a vague reference to corrupt practice on the part of the petitioner and his agent and workers. It is interesting to note that the averments contained in Paragraph 19 of the affidavit of Ram Swarup are not statement of facts, as that paragraph has been sworn on legal advice. It is interesting to note that the averments contained in Paragraph 19 of the affidavit of Ram Swarup are not statement of facts, as that paragraph has been sworn on legal advice. No reliance, therefore, can be placed on the assertions contained in the paragraph to support the respondents' contention that there are allegations of corrupt practices which would justify a recriminatory proceeding against the petitioner before the election tribunal. Apart from all this, even if the petitioner is granted relief and the Returning Officer declares election afresh, in case, the petitioner is declared elected in place of Ram Swarup, the respondents will have opportunity to challenge the validity of the election of petitioner, if they so desire, on the ground of corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, his workers and agent. In either case, the respondents are not left without any remedy. The respondent's contention, therefore, must fail. 20. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order of the Assistant Returning Officer dated 1st June, 1971 and the notification dated 7th June, 1971 issued by the State Government are quashed. The opposite party No. 6, the Assistant Returning Officer is directed to declare the result of the election afresh in the manner required by law and the observations made in the judgment at an early date. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.