V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) SHRI M. G. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri T. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Government Advocate for the State. They have filed their replies to the show-cause notice issued by this court. They are heard. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to panchayat Elections. The petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorari to the effect that his nomination (Annexure-P/5) paper was wrongfully rejected and the election of respondent 4, who was declared elected as unopposed being the only candidate for the post of Sarpanch, in the arena, whose nomination form was found to be valid on scrutinty. ( 2 ) SHRI Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner has been kept out of the field by unlawful undemocratic means. ( 3 ) SHRI Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, however, submitted that the petitioner has not only an alternative remedy by way of an Election Petition, but has in fact availed of it and should not, therefore, be allowed to pursue two parallel proceedings. ( 4 ) SHRI Upadhyaya, while not disputing the fact, expressed his serious doubt the efficaciousness of the alternative remedy. It was bis submission, which as he said, he was making with full sense of responsibility that sttutorily provided remedy has become almost illusory in the sense that it takes years and years before an Election Petition relating to panchayats is decided and various factors contribute to this delay, which invariably result in expiry of the full term of office. He maintained that an Election Petition is not filed for pure academic of Election law and it is this illusoriness of the remedy, which brought him here before this Court. ( 5 ) THE submission made by the learned counsel cannot be lightly brushed aside The grim realities that prevail in the matter of Panchayat election Petitions, even Shri Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, does not deny. ( 6 ) TO allay, the apprehensions expressed by the learned counsel and to obviate any difficulty, a time limit can well be fixed in disposal of the appeal/election Petition (as per Annexure-R/4) and it is for this reason that we have deliberately refrained from making any comments on merits of the case. ( 6 ) TO allay, the apprehensions expressed by the learned counsel and to obviate any difficulty, a time limit can well be fixed in disposal of the appeal/election Petition (as per Annexure-R/4) and it is for this reason that we have deliberately refrained from making any comments on merits of the case. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, even while dismissing this petition on account of an alternative remedy, not only being available, but actually availed, it is directed that the Election Petition preferred by the petitioner shall be decided within THREE MONTHS from the date of this order. The respondent No. 4, it is to be hoped, shall co-operate with the authorities in expeditious disposal of the Election Petition within the time limit fixed. It is for the State to see that the hearing of the Election Petition is not delayed of postpones oa its account. It is of utmost importance that officers hearing panchayat Election Petitions not merely attend to, but also actually hear such matters with all promptitude and expeditiousness, so as to dispose of the matters with all promptitude and expeditiousness, so as to avoid the criticism that the statutory remedy, though provided, is rendered illusory, because of undue delay at times more than the term of office itself. ( 8 ) WITH these directions, this petition stands disposed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .