Honble SHETHNA, J.–Petitioner- Smt. Pura, who was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, 9 L.M. (B) (12), of Panchayat Samiti, Anupgarh, has filed this writ petition and challenged the order of re-counting dated 1.7.96 (Annex.2), memo of re-count dated 26.7.96, order dated 30.8.96 restoring the election petition to its original number, judgment dated 4.10.96 (Annex.4) and the proceedings of the draw of lots and declaration of result dated 4.10.96 and the ex parte order dated 13.10.95. (2). Learned counsel Shri Shishodia, however, has assailed the order dated 1.7.96 (part of Annex.4) and judgment and order dated 4.10.96 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anupgarh (Sri Ganganagar). Mr. Shishodia firstly submitted that in absence of any application for re-count, no order of re-count could have been passed in view of Rule 49 (6) of the Rajasthan Pancha- yati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. He has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment reported in Smt. Ram Rath vs. Saroj Devi and others (1). (3). Mr. Shishodia then submitted that impugned order of re-count was laconic and without application of mind. He submitted that the secrecy of ballot was not maintained by passing the impugned order of re-count. In support of his submiss- ion, he has placed reliance upon two decisions of Single Bench of this Court reported in Atma Ram vs. Mana Ram & Ors. (2) and Jagdish vs. Chandgi and anr. (3) and on Supreme Court judgment reported in P.K.K. Shamsudeen vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and others (4). (4). Mr. Shishodia further submitted that in view of Rule 51 only Returning Off- icer was empowered for draw of lots when equal votes are there but the learned Judge has no power of draw of lots. In this case, the learned Judge by calling a child of aged about ten years for draw of lots, wrongly declared the respondent No. 1 as elected. (5). Fourthly it was submitted that memo of inspection prepared by a Judge of Raisinghnagar but impugned decision/order of unsitting the petitioner was passed by the learned Judge of Anupgarh who himself never inspected the ballot papers. he simply relied upon the inspection of the Judge at Raisinghnagar, who has passed the order on the next date of order of transfer passed by the District Judge transferring the matter from Raisinghnagar to Anupgarh. (6). he simply relied upon the inspection of the Judge at Raisinghnagar, who has passed the order on the next date of order of transfer passed by the District Judge transferring the matter from Raisinghnagar to Anupgarh. (6). As against that, learned counsel Shri Acharya for the respondent No. 1 vehemently submitted that this petition should be dismissed by this Court on the ground of false statement made in the petition. It was submitted that in the petitioner the petitioner has averred that on 13.10.95 when ex parte order was passed, no notice was given, which submission is absolutely false, Because, the said order was passed by the learned Judge in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Not only that, the petitioner herself filed an application before the learned District Judge not to transfer her case. However, in the petition, a statement was made that her counsel did not inform about the order. Thus, this Court is tried to be mis-led by making such incorrect and false statement in the petition. (7). Mr. Purohit further submitted that a specific statement is made in para No. 14 of the petition that the petitioner has no other equally efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India whereas the petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy of applying before the Civil Court for recalling an ex parte order by way of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. He submitted that this writ petition was filed before this Court on 10.10.96 and in fact thereafter the petitioner approached the Civil Court for recalling the ex parte order by way of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC on 29.10.96. He further submitted that before the Civil Court, the petitioner failed to obtain any relief on an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. (8). He submitted that the said application for recalling ex parte order was withdrawn by an application dated 14.3.97 which was allowed by an order dated 28.4.97 passed by the Civil Court. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy open to her and in fact the said remedy was availed of during the pendency of that writ petition therefore, only on this ground this writ petition is required to be dismissed. On merits Mr. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy open to her and in fact the said remedy was availed of during the pendency of that writ petition therefore, only on this ground this writ petition is required to be dismissed. On merits Mr. Purohit submitted that no error was committed by the Court in passing the impugned orders of re-count on 1.7.96 (Annex.2) and 4.10.96 (Annex.4) unsitting the petitioner. He submitted that this petition though labelled as a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Cons- Constitution, therefore, this Court would not interfere with the impugned orders where no error either on facts or on law has been committed by the Civil Court. (9). There is a lot of substance in the submissions raised by learned counsel Shri Acharya for the respondent No. 1 that this petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material fact and mis-leading the Court by making not wholly correct statement in the petition and also on the ground of alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. The argument and the contention of the petitioner in the petition that when ex parte order was passed, no notice was given to the petitioner and that the petitioner did not come to know about the order as her counsel did not inform about the order, is not only incorrect statement but a false statement. The very fact that the petitioner herself made an application before the District Judge requesting him not to transfer the case and the presence of her counsel on the date of passing the order was sufficient to dis- believe the say of the petitioner that she was not in know of the order as her counsel did not inform about the same. It is well settled law that those persons who do not come before the Court with clean hands are not entitled for any relief even if they have got a good case on merits. Hence, on this ground alone, the petitioner was required to be dismissed. (10). There is also lot of force and substance in the submission made by Mr. Acharya that this petition was required to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. Hence, on this ground alone, the petitioner was required to be dismissed. (10). There is also lot of force and substance in the submission made by Mr. Acharya that this petition was required to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. As stated earlier, a definite statement was made in para No.14 of the petition by the petitioner that she had no alternative remedy accept by way of a writ petition. However, the alternative remedy of applying the Civil Court for recalling the ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was very much available to the petitioner. Not only that the petitioner did make such appli- cation within few days of filling of the writ petition before this Court. However, she did not get any order on that application, therefore, an application was filed on 14.3.97 to withdraw the application made under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. and the permission was granted on 14.3.97 by the Civil Court to withdraw the same in view of the fact that the writ petition was filed. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available to her and she in fact availed of after filing the writ petition. Mr. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, tried to submit that she was ill advised in filing such application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC before the Civil Court for recalling ex parte order when she had already challenged the said order before this court by way of this writ petition. I will not go into that question whether she was ill-advised in filing the application before the Civil Court or not. Suffice it to say that there was an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. Thus, on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this petition is required to be dismissed. (11). In view of the above, I do not see any reason to go into the other submi- ssions raised by Mr. Shishodia on merits of the case. (12). Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Before parting, I must state that there is a growing tendency in the litigants of making false and incorrect statements in their writ petitions and obtaining interim orders in their favour by making false averments in the petition and mis-leading the Court. Shishodia on merits of the case. (12). Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Before parting, I must state that there is a growing tendency in the litigants of making false and incorrect statements in their writ petitions and obtaining interim orders in their favour by making false averments in the petition and mis-leading the Court. They enjoy the fruits of such interim orders for years together. Perhaps this is the best case of such nature where the petitioner was unsitted by the order passed way back on 4.10.96 but she continued to remain as Sarpanch under the interim orders of the Court for nearly 2-1/2 years. To check this practice, heavy exemplary cost is required to be awarded. Hence, the petitioner is directed to pay a special cost of Rs. 10, 000/- (Rs. ten thousand) to the respondent No.1 Smt. Lalki within one month from today. ...End of the Vol. 1999(2) Raj.