ORDER N.L. Ganguly, J. - Election of office bearers of the goan sabha was held on 7-6-1988. The petitioner, respondent No. 5 and three other persons had filed their nomination papers before the authority concerned. 24-5-1988 was the last date for with drawl of the nomination papers and 5-6-1988 was the date of election. On 25-4-1988 symbols were allotted to the various candidates who had filed their nomination papers. Om Prakash. Jeetendra Kumar. Dalberi Devi. Malkhan Singh and Virendra Singh were allotted symbols 'kursi' (chair),' kalam dawat' (inkpot with pen), 'tractor and 'ghora' (horse), respectively. These symbols were allotted in accordance with the provisions of R. 20A (20H) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act'. The polling was done on 5-6-1988. After counting the votes on 7-5-1988, the Returning Officer was about to declare the result of the election and declare the name of the elected pradhan. There were disturbances and commotion on account of the rival contestants in the election. Admittedly, at the time of allotment of the symbols, the petitioner. Virendra Kumar, was allotted the symbol of horse and respondent No. 5 was allotted the symbol of tractor. After counting, it was found that the candidate with symbol 'horse' had received 231 votes and the other candidates next to him had received 184 votes having symbol of tractor. It is stated that the petitioner since had obtained the maximum number of votes, was entitled to be declared as elected pradhan. But as soon as the counting was over, the respondent No. 5. who is a member of Kisan Union along with Harpal Singh, President of the said Union and other members of the said Union, and a large number of persons along with his brother who is an advocate came to the returning officer and threatened him with dire consequences. The aforesaid persons had threatened the Block Development Officer concerned that they shall create problems as was created in Hathras. and they asked the returning officer to declare respondent No. 5 as elected pradhan, having symbol of 'horse' allotted to him. The returning officer intimated the Zonal Magistrate of the area who were present at the office of the returning officer with his record. and they asked the returning officer to declare respondent No. 5 as elected pradhan, having symbol of 'horse' allotted to him. The returning officer intimated the Zonal Magistrate of the area who were present at the office of the returning officer with his record. After receiving the message of the returning officer, the election officer/District Magistrate by wireless directed the returning officer to decide the case according to his conscience. The allegations of the petitioner is that the respondents had created a terror and the returning officer was under a strain and fear of the respondents. In such a situation under duress and coercion of the respondents, the returning officer obtained in writing from all the other contestants in the election in writing that Symbol horse' be allotted in the name of the respondent No. 5. Such writing was obtained from the other contestants except the petitioner. After obtaining such writing from the contestants, the returning officer declared the result of the counting and declared respondent No. 5 as elected pradhan. After being aggrieved by the high-handedness and arbitrary act of the respondent, and the illegal declaration of the election result by the returning officer, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is worth noting that this petition was filed on 28-7-1988. Notices were directed to be served to the respondents. Respondent No. 5 put in appearance through Sri Rajesh Pathik on 6-9-1988. He was directed to file a counter-affidavit and was granted 3 weeks' time. No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. The case was again listed but no counter-affidavit was filed. Ultimately, the case was listed on 5-10-1988. Further two weeks' time was granted to respondent No. 5 for filing counter-affidavit. No couner-affidavit was filed on 17-7-1990. The case was listed before the Court. Since, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 was not appearing before the Court. the Court was pleased to fix the case for 18th March, 1991, peremptorily, on that date also the learned counsel for respondent failed to appear before the Court. The case is on the list today peremptorily as the first case. List has been received. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 is not present. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel. The case is on the list today peremptorily as the first case. List has been received. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 is not present. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel. A counter- affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of U.P. The fact that symbols were allotted initially in accordance with provisions of R. 20A of the Panchayats Raj Rules is admitted. It is not disputed that initially the symbol of horse' ('Ghora') was allotted to the petitioner and symbol allotted to respondent No. 5 was 'tractor'. The polling was done on the same symbols. The controversy arose only on the date of counting of the ballots. The learned counsel for the State has not shown any provision in the Act, or the rule to indicate that the symbols once allotted can be changed subsequently at the time of election or at the time of counting of the ballots. As stated earlier, the ballots were being counted by the returning officer when the respondent No. 5 and his associates came and threatened him with dire consequences unless he declares respondent No. 5 as successful candidate in the election. This fact that respondent No. 5 had threatened the returning officer is corroborated by the fact that immediately after the threats extended by the respondent No. 5, information was sent by the returning officer to the election officer/ District Magistrate who, in turn, had asked him to decide the matter according to his own conscience. It appears that the returning officer was subdued and under coercion had to succumb to the wishes of the respondent No. 5. In doing so, he obtained in writing from all other contesting candidates that the symbol allotted to respondent No. 5 was 'horse' ('Ghora') and the symbol of the petitioner was `tractor'. No such writing was given by the petitioner. There is no provision in the Act or the Rule which may direct the returning officer to get such writing at the time of counting and after such writing, the returning officer to declare the result on its basis. The averments made in the writ petition have not been controverted by any counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 5. There is no scope except to accept uncontroverted allegations of the petitioner. 2. The averments made in the writ petition have not been controverted by any counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 5. There is no scope except to accept uncontroverted allegations of the petitioner. 2. Learned standing counsel has placed one objection that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar of alternative remedy of filing an election petition under S. 12C(b)(ii). He suggests that the language of the section aforesaid, "by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder," covers the present case. I t was nothing but gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. The election petition was the only remedy. The petitioner was wrongly advised to come to this Court and file the present writ petition. The submission of the learned standing counsel may have some force, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the writ petition was immediately filed after the declaration of the result on 28-7-1988, and this Court was pleased to take cognizance of the matter and the counter-affidavit was called for and the State of U.P. filed counter-affidavit, the submission has little force. Further, no such objection has been raised by the learned standing counsel in the counter- affidavit filed by him on behalf of the State of U.P. It would not be fair for this Court, after a lapse of more than 2t/2 years, to drive away the petitioner to subordinate Court seeking relief of general procedure of election petition. If such a course is adopted, the persons who took law in their own hands and obtained a declaration in his own favour by creating such a situation that the returning officer was compelled to declare the result, it would lead to injustice, rather to justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1988 UPLBEC 218 : AIR 1988 All 151 , Methodist Church in India v. Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly in which the Division Bench of this Court observed that if it is found necessary for promotion of justice and prevention of injustice, which is the primary object of the constitutional provision the bar of alternative remedy would not operate for entertaining the writ petition. Another case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the 1990 U PLBEC 279 : 1990 Lab IC 1173, Rajendra Pd. Gond v. D.I.O.S., Jaunpur. Another case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the 1990 U PLBEC 279 : 1990 Lab IC 1173, Rajendra Pd. Gond v. D.I.O.S., Jaunpur. In the said Division Bench case, this Court after relying on AIR 1958 SC 86 , AIR 1969 SC 556 and 1981 UPLBEC 61 (FB) negatived the bar of alternative remedy for entertaining the writ petition. As observed above, the bar, of alternative remedy of filing election petition raised at this stage after 2 years will lead to injustice. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned standing counsel is repelled. 3. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned declaration of election result dated 7-6-1988 (Annexure 2 to the petition) is liable to be quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to proceed to declare the result of the election treating the name of candidates and allotment of their symbols which was finalised on 25-5-1988 as legal and correct, and after due notice to the parties, shall declare the result of the successful candidate treating the symbol marks of 'hourse' (Ghora) allotted to Virendra Singh and tractor' symbol allotted to Malkhan Singh. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. The respondent shall declare the result of the election in question within a period of one month of the filing of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before him.