JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. ON 8-7-1982 we had passed the following order- "For the reasons to be stated hereafter, the petition fails and is dismissed." We now proceed to give the reasons. 2. THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that in the district of Lucknow there is a Gram Sabha Achli Khera. THE petitioner is a member of the aforesaid Gram Sabha and in the year 1972 he was elected as its Pradhan. THEre was an election for the office of Pradhan notified to be held on 3-6-1982. THE petitioner filed his nomination papers on 12-5-1982. Two other candidates, who are opposite parties 6 and 7, also filed their nomination papers. THE scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 13-5-82 by the Assistant Returning Officer (Opposite Party no. 5). THE nomination papers of the petitioner was rejected on 13-5-1982 by opposite party no. 5 on the objection of opposite party no. 7 to the effect that the petitioner had already been convicted in two criminal cases under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. It is asserted by the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner had filed appeals in this Court against the orders by which he was convicted and that in those appeals the sentence has been suspended. It is further asserted by the petitioner that he had filed certified copies of the orders dated 22-4-1981 and 24-5-79 before the Assistant Returning Officer and inspite of the aforesaid orders, the latter rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner and thus deprived the petitioner of his valuable rights of contesting the election for the office of Gram Pradhan. THE petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before Election Director, Panchayat Raj, Lucknow (Opposite Party no. 2) under section 12-BB of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter to be referred to as Act). He also submitted an application for the removal of the so-called disqualification under section 5-A of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer.(Opposite Party no. 3), THEse representations were not disposed of by opposite parties 2 and 3 and in the meantime the election took place on 3-6-82 in which the opposite party no. 6 was declared elected. THE petitioner consequently prayed that the order by which his nomination paper was rejected by opposite party no. 5 be quashed and that a writ in the nature of quo-warranto be issued against opposite party no. 6 was declared elected. THE petitioner consequently prayed that the order by which his nomination paper was rejected by opposite party no. 5 be quashed and that a writ in the nature of quo-warranto be issued against opposite party no. 6 and the office of the Gram Pradhan of Village Achli Khera be declared to be vacant. Another prayer has been made that the opposite parties 2 and 3 be directed to dispose of the representation already made by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present writ petition is maintainable inspite of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under section 12-C of the Act. His contention is that the remedy by way of election petition would not be an appropriate remedy in the peculiar circumstance of the present case and this court should therefore, in its discretion, interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quash the order by which his nomination paper has been illegally rejected by the Assistant Returning Officer (Opposite Party no.5. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to canvass before us that the order by which nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected could not have been legally passed by opposite party no. 5, as the petitioner had already been released on bail in the criminal appeals, which he had filed in this court. 4. SECTION 12-1 of the Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or any decision given by the officer or authority appointed under this Act in connection with the conduct of elections there under. Sub-section (1) of SECTION 12-C provides as under : "12-C(1). 4. SECTION 12-1 of the Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or any decision given by the officer or authority appointed under this Act in connection with the conduct of elections there under. Sub-section (1) of SECTION 12-C provides as under : "12-C(1). The election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha or as member of a Gaon Sabha Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat under section 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time in such manner as may be prescribed on|the ground that :- (a) the election has not been a free election by reason that corrupt practice or bribery or undue influence has been extensively prevailed at the election, or (b) that the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination ; or (ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed there under. Sub-section (3) of section 12-C provides that the application under subsection (1) may be presented by any candidate at the election or any electorate and it shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. A person who files the nomination paper at the election, whether such nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall be deemed to be a candidate at the election. The reliefs which can be granted in an election petition are indicated in sub-section (4) of section 12-C. The authority to whom an application under sub-section (1) may be made may either set aside the election or declare the election to be void or declare the applicant to be duly elected or it may grant any other relief to the applicant. Sub-Section (6) of section 12-C provides that any party aggrieved by an order of the Prescribed Authority upon an application under sub-section (1) may file a revision before the District Judge. Sub-Section (9) provides that the decision of the Prescribed Authority, subject to any order passed by the Revising Authority and every decision of the Revising Authority shall be final. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions would indicate that there is an appropriate machinery provided under the Act for the enforcement of the statutory rights. Sub-Section (9) provides that the decision of the Prescribed Authority, subject to any order passed by the Revising Authority and every decision of the Revising Authority shall be final. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions would indicate that there is an appropriate machinery provided under the Act for the enforcement of the statutory rights. In a case where the nomination papers has been illegally rejected, the person concerned has a right to file an election petition and it being established at the trial that the nomination papers had been illegally rejected, appropriate relief can be granted to him by the Prescribed Authority. It is also apparent from a perusal of the provisions contained in section 12-C of the Act that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is revisable by the District Judge. The Supreme Court in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 has held that where a right or liability is created by statute which gives special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. The Supreme Court in that case further laid down that the right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to the limitations imposed by it. It may be stated that in this case a writ petition was filed against an order by which nomination paper of a candidate for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly had been rejected. The Supreme Court dealing with that aspect of the matter laid down as under ; "The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with the election proceedings, one while there are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded) and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. Any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. Any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. Under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question." 6. THIS decision of the Supreme court was followed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Majid Ahmad v. Assistant Returning Officer, AIR 1954 Alld. 234. It was laid down that the right to vote or to stand as a candidate in an election of Town Area Committee is a statutory right and remedy of the person aggrieved is restricted to the statutory relief. It was further laid down that where the nomination paper of a candidate is rejected by the Returning Officer, the decision cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Calcutta High court in the case of Narayan Chandra v. District Magistrate, Hooghly, AIR 1954 Calcutta 32 laid down that right to vote at an election, the right to nominate candidates or be nominated as a candidate in a Municipal election, are all rights which have been created by the Bengal Municipal Act and do not exist apart from it. It, therefore, follows that where a specific remedy is provided for by the Act for the violation of a provision of the Statute, that remedy should be followed. 7. A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Hariprasad Khadak Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 342 held that where a candidate is elected a Vice Chairman of a Janapada Sabha on rejection of a vote of the rival candidate on the ground that the ballot paper had an imprint of the cross which could disclose the identity of the voter, it is open to the aggrieved candidate to file an election petition under section 22 of the C. P. and Berar Local Government Act, where the question whether the imprint was caused accidentally or intentionally can be enquired into. Such a case is not fit for the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 8. Such a case is not fit for the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 8. IN the case of Nannemiyan v. Government of Madhya Bharat, reported in 1957 Madhya Bharat 38 it was held that the Panchayats including the Gram Panchayat have been brought into existence for the first time under the provisions of the Panchayat Act of section 2006 and a new right, namely, the right to vote at the election and to stand as a candidate for a seat in the Panchayat is conferred on the citizens in the rural areas. This is not a right that can be claimed under the common law and does not exist apart from the Act under which it has come into existence. It is well settled that when a new right is created by a statute or special law and the statute or the special law creating the right also provides a machinery for redress, the party complaining that his rights under the statute or the special law have been violated, must resort to the remedies provided by the statute or special law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, 1971 Punjab and Haryana 379 laid down that an approach to the High Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was wholly misconceived, as a remedy by way of an election petition was available under the relevant statute. 9. SIMILAR view, as has been expressed in the above cases, has been expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of Kumaraswami Gounder v. The Joint Collector, Coimbtore, AIR 1965 Madras 431 and by the Delhi High Court in the case of Durlab Singh Sant Singh v. Mehar Chand Khanna, AIR 1967 Delhi 68, although in the latter case nomination paper was rejected at the general election pertaining to New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency and the election involved was not a Panchayat election. 10. SRI Robin Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, referred to the case of Tundi Lal v. Returning Officer, AIR. 1965 Madhya Pradesh 256. 10. SRI Robin Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, referred to the case of Tundi Lal v. Returning Officer, AIR. 1965 Madhya Pradesh 256. A perusal of the judgment rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court in this case would indicate that nomination papers of all the candidates seeking election under Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act had been rejected and, as such, there was no occasion for notifying the election of any particular person under section 20 and rule 80 of the said Act. It was in this context that it was held that if there could be no notification of the election, then the remedy under section 357 (1) of the said Act would not be open to the applicant and he could avail of the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mitra has also referred to the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 Patna 65. The Patna High Court in that case has observed as under : "After a Gram Panchayat election has been held if the petitioner does not avail of the alternative remedy of filing the election petition before the Election Tribunal, the High Court ought not to interfere merely on the ground that there has been some illegality or irregularity in conducting the election. Unless the question of infringement of a fundamental right is involved, the High Court has got descretion to issue or refuse a writ. The illegality complained of to justify interference by the High Court, where an alternative remedy has not been availed of, must be of the nature on account of which it may be held that the election was no election at all in the eye of law or a colourable one. Where the validity of the Act or the rules under which the election is held is itself challenged, a writ may be issued notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted. But, if the validity of only a particular section of the Act or one of the Rules is challenged, the section of the Act or the rule must be such, observance or compliance whereof has affected the result of the election in the particular case to justify issue of a writ by a High Court even if the alternative remedy has not been availed of. Writ applications filed merely for the purposes of obtaining stay orders from the High Court should be discouraged." 11. THE Patna High court itself was clearly of the view that remedy under the Constitution was a discretionary remedy and in certain cases the High court may well refuse, in its discretion, to interfere with the election and direct the parties to avail of the alternative remedy. 12. THE petitioner, in the instant case, has only challenged the rejection of his nomination paper. He has also raised a grievance that his representations have not been disposed of. THE petitioner has not challenged the vires of any provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act or vires of any of the rules framed under the Act. It will be further seen that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on 13-5-1982 and the writ petition was filed on 7-7-1982. In the meantime poll was held on 3-6-82 and the result was also declared in which opposite party no. 6 was declared elected to the office of Gram Pradhan. In this situation it would not be appropriate for this court to interfere with the election in question in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him under section 12-C of the Act. We may specify here that the decision in the instant case has been rendered on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case as placed before this court and that we do not intend to lay it down as an absolute rule that in no case can a writ petition be filed or would it be maintainable in respect of an election dispute. 13. FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. ON 8-7-82 we had passed the following order : "The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. For the reasons to be stated hereafter, the prayer for leave to appeal to Supreme Court is rejected." We now proceed to state our reasons. 15. THE question involved in the petition was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against an order by which the nomination paper of the petitioner for the office of Gram Pradhan has been rejected. 15. THE question involved in the petition was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against an order by which the nomination paper of the petitioner for the office of Gram Pradhan has been rejected. On a consideration of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in N. P. Ponnuswami v. THE Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 we have held that we would not, in our discretion, interfere with the impugned order by which the nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. In our opinion, the case does not involve a substantial question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. 16. IN view of the above, the prayer for the grant of a certificate that the case is fit for appeal to Supreme Court is rejected. Petition dismissed.