RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition the validity of the declaration of election of Shri B. Jayaram of Sathyanarayanapet, 6th Cross, Door no. 37, Bellary, as per Annexure-B which is a Gazette notification to Division X of the Bellary Municipal Council, is under challenge. ( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances leading to this petition are as follows : Tothe X division of the Bellary City Municipal Council an election was held on 29-4-1990 under the provisions of the karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short the Act ). Amongst others, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 contested the election to the said division of the Municipal Council from general constituency. The returning Officer after counting the ballot papers in the presence of the agents of the candidates and having entered Form 19 announced that the petitioner had secured the highest number of votes, namely, 1560 and respondent no. 3 had secured 1507 votes and therefore declared the petitioner as having been elected and issued a certificate as provided in Form 20 on 1-5-1990. However in the Gazette notification dated 16th May 1990 respondent No. 3 has been shown to have been elected instead of the petitioner in respect of Division X at serial number 35. The allegation made by the petitioner is that subsequent to the issue of Form 20 the 1st respondent altered the entries in the result sheet by striking off the total number of votes polled in favour of respondent No. 3 from 1507 to 1730. ( 3 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the certificate in Form 20 has been given as provided under Rule 68 of the Karnataka mur. icipalities (Election of Councillors) rules 1977 (in short the Rules) the returning officer has no power to cause the publication of another person's name declaring him as having been elected. The learned Government Advocate however contended that in cases where a mistake creeps in it is open to the returning officer to correct the same before sending Form 19 to the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner or the Government and even correct Form 20 which is not in conformity with Form 19. The learned Government Advocate however contended that in cases where a mistake creeps in it is open to the returning officer to correct the same before sending Form 19 to the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner or the Government and even correct Form 20 which is not in conformity with Form 19. He next submitted that if there is any mistake in the declaration of result in the Gazette subsequent to issue of Form 20 it certainly entitles the petitioner to approach the Election Tribunal provided under the act on the grounds mentioned in Section 23 thereof and in view of the alternative remedy provided under the Act it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioner. Lastly, he urged that when there is clear material on record to show that the entries made by the returning officer indicating the issue of Form 20 is a clear mistake not warranted by law any relief if granted to the petitioner would perpetuate an illegality and such a course should not be adopted. In answer to this stand of the Returning Officer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from having no power under relevant provision of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder the alterations having been effected without notice to him is absolutely unfair and not proper procedure at all. ( 4 ) THE scheme of the conduct of elections to a municipal council is as provided under the Rules. It is provided therein that after an election has been held the votes would be counted as provided under Rule 61 and make entries as contained in result sheet in Form 18. At that stage if any candidate has any objections the same can be raised. Under rule 62 it is provided that the counting will have to be continuous unless a fresh poll is held. Under Rule 65 the returning officer shall then subject to the provisions of Section 20 of the Act declare the elected candidate to whom highest number of valid votes have been given, complete and certify the return of election in Form 19, send the signed copies thereof to the deputy Commissioner, Commissioner and the Government. On receipt of the election (return) in Form 19, the commissioner in the case of a city municipal council publish the names of the persons elected in the gazette. On receipt of the election (return) in Form 19, the commissioner in the case of a city municipal council publish the names of the persons elected in the gazette. Under Rule 68 as soon as a candidate has been declared by the returning officer under Rule 64 to be elected, the returning officer shall grant to that candidate a certificate of election in Form 20 and he is obliged to take an acknowledgement of having given such a certificate from the candidate. ( 5 ) AN examination of the scheme of the provisions of the Rules will make it clear that after the counting of the votes commences there is no question of stopping of the counting of the votes; it has got to be a continuous process. A candidate or his agent present at counting may require the returning officer to have the votes recounted after Form 18 result sheet is entered, on specific grounds. It is only in such cases there could be recount by the returning officer. In this case, none of the parties applied for a recount. A reading of Rules 66 and 68 of the Rules makes it clear that a certificate in Form-20 can be granted only after the form 19 is completed which in turn tallies with Form 18. Before Form 19 is completed there is no question of grant of a certificate in Form 20 under Rule 68. However, the learned Government Advocate contended that if Form 20 has been issued which is not in conformity with form 19 it is open to the authority to correct the same and publish proper results. But, I am afraid the contention is misconceived. Scheme of the Rules does not contemplate Form 20 preceding form 19 and therefore there being no scope for mistake occurring in Form 19 which can be discovered and corrected after issue of Form 20. In this case, a perusal of Form 19 will disclose that originally the 3rd respondent had secured 1507 votes but is later on struck off and marked 1730 votes. It is not clear as to when this alteration was carried out. From the sequence of events it is obvious that the alteration in Form 19 has been carried out after issue of Form 20. In that view of the matter, I think the contention advanced on behalf of the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. It is not clear as to when this alteration was carried out. From the sequence of events it is obvious that the alteration in Form 19 has been carried out after issue of Form 20. In that view of the matter, I think the contention advanced on behalf of the 1st respondent cannot be accepted. It is not as if Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is attracted to a situation of this sort where power is conferred on an authority to declare results of election, in this case, it is not open to the returning officer to withdraw a certificate once issued because such a certificate confers certain rights upon a party and that itself indicates that it is contrary to the powers available u/s 21 of the General Clauses act. Therefore, there is no provision at all empowering the returning officer to carry out correction even if it be that such a certificate had been given under a mistake. The appropriate course for the returning officer would be to report to the government the circumstances in which the mistake occurred and seek directions thereto. The Government in exercise of its overall powers of supervision under relevant rules consider the matter or allow the concerned party to file an election petition and seek redressal. If any other course is adopted it would lead to disastrous consequences. The officers manning election process must act with due care and cannot afford to commit any mistake at all as stakes are very high in such matters and cannot be found napping. In such circumstances the power to correct form 20 cannot be inferred from the provisions of the Rules at ati. ( 6 ) MOREOVER, after having issued Form 20 if the returning officer discovered any mistake in Form 19 and decided to correct the same in exercise of powers u/s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, he should have notified all parties concerned and not make a report, contrary to what was openly done, behind their back giving a go-by to all notions of fair procedure in administration. Thus, it was not permissible at all for the returning officer to make a report contrary to what was declared under Form 20 and the announcement made at the end of counting and hence interference is called for in this matter. Thus, it was not permissible at all for the returning officer to make a report contrary to what was declared under Form 20 and the announcement made at the end of counting and hence interference is called for in this matter. ( 7 ) IN support of the second contention as to alternative remedy being a bar to seek relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the learned Govt. , Advocate relied upon a decision of this Court in maruti v Slate of Karnataka (ILR 1990 kar. 1378) which is rendered following decision in S T. Muthusami v K. Nstarajan and others ( AIR 1988 SC 616 ). Supreme Court does not lay down any inexorable rule that in no case can the High courts interfere with an election once the election process has commenced. If there are any extraordinary circumstances and if there is any flagrant violation of the rules or procedure it is duty of this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this case the returning officer having declared the result at the end of counting issued Form 20 which was then in accord with Form 19, the returning officer's action in altering Form 19 behind the back of the parties and without their knowledge is shocking. If returning officers are allowed to act with impunity in that matter will shake the confidence of the public and there wiil be no sanctity attached to procedural safeguards available under the Rules. In a case of this sort, it is the plain duty of this Court to exercise its powers of judicial review and not to relegate the parties to alternative remedies. ( 8 ) THE last contention advanced by the learned Govt. , Advocate that the order that may be passed by this Court may perpetuate an illegality rather than advance the cause of justice also does not appeal to me. Electoral rights are controlled by the statute and there is no question of equity or good conscience in such matters, like the pound of flesh demanded by Shylock in terms of the document. Electoral rights are controlled by the statute and there is no question of equity or good conscience in such matters, like the pound of flesh demanded by Shylock in terms of the document. To allow the returning officer to issue a certificate under Form 20 and go back upon the same and his reporting differently to the Government and sending a different Form 19 does not advance cause of justice ; to uphold the action of returning officer in declaring a result and making a report contrary to the same leading to impugned notification is stultification of law and procedure. Just as the petitioner can be asked to avail of alternative remedy, the 3rd respondent also can avail of the same if there are any errors in the conduct of election. In that view of the matter, I do think rather the cause of justice being sacrificed it is advanced. If any of the parties are aggrieved after the declaration of the results in the Gazette he can certainly file an election petition and get appropriate relief before the election tribunal. That will be a sufficient safeguard. ( 9 ) IN the result, this petition will have to be allowed and Annexure-3 in so far as it relates to the election of Shri b. Jayaram from Division X of the Betlary municipal Council found at serial number 35 is quashed and in his place respondents 1, 2 and 4 shall declare petitioner to have been elected. Ordered accordingly. Rule made absolute. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .