JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This writ petition challenges the election of respondent No. 5 as Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, in an election held on 18.10.2000. 2. It has been stated in the petition that one Shri Subhash Sharma was earlier elected as Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, and on his resignation from office, a casual vacancy became available and for filling up the said vacancy, a meeting was fixed by the Divisional Commissioner-respondent No. 3 under Section 6 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short the Act). Shri Bakshi Ram Arora-respondent No. 4 who was a councillor, was appointed as Presiding Officer. The election was accordingly held and respondent No. 5-Brij Mohan Kapur was declared elected as Mayor defeating the petitioner and one Shri Dharamvir Sarin. As per proceedings Annexure P-1, signed by the Presiding Officer-respondent No. 4 and Divisional Commissioner- respondent No. 3, 66 votes were polled and one vote was rejected on the ground that by writing his name, the voter has disclosed the secrecy. Out of 65 votes, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were held to have secured 25 votes each while Dharamvir Sarin was declared to have secured 19 votes. On this, draw of lots was held as provided under Section 60(b) and the additional vote was secured by respondent No. 5. It is stated that election of respondent No. 5 was vitiated on the following grounds : (a) The counting of votes by the Presiding Officer was on instructions from political bosses and though the petitioner had secured 24 votes, his one vote was illegally rejected and invalid vote secured by respondent No. 5 was wrongly counted. (b) The conduct of respondent No. 3 also vitiated the election as she was interfering with the conduct of the election as could be seen on the video cassette which was in possession of the petitioner and which was shown on the Sity Cable. (c) The draw of lots had to be done in the presence of the candidates but no draw of lots was held and the Presiding Officer declared respondent No. 5 elected without draw of lots and slipped from the back door. (d) Though a senior Deputy Mayor was available, the Divisional Commissioner appointed a Councillor to conduct the meeting. 3. (c) The draw of lots had to be done in the presence of the candidates but no draw of lots was held and the Presiding Officer declared respondent No. 5 elected without draw of lots and slipped from the back door. (d) Though a senior Deputy Mayor was available, the Divisional Commissioner appointed a Councillor to conduct the meeting. 3. Written statements have been filed by respondents 1 to 5 separately denying the contentions raised in the writ petition wherein it has been stated that respondent No. 4 was validly appointed to preside over the meeting, the Commissioner did not interfere with the conduct of the elections, the votes were properly counted and draw of lots was held in accordance with Section 60(b) of the Act. The conduct of election was free from any mala fide or extraneous influence and minutes of proceedings were faithfully recorded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended, repeating the averments in the petition that the election held on 18.10.2000 was liable to be declared invalid as the petitioner had got higher number of votes; draw of lots was not held in the presence of the petitioner; the Divisional Commissioner had illegally interfered with the conduct of the elections; respondent No. 4 was wrongly allowed to preside over the meeting. He has relied upon the decisions reported in Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (para 19), Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 147 (para 9) and Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri, AIR 1971 SC 1162 (para 19) in support of his submission that video cassette was admissible in evidence. He has also relied upon State of U.P. v. Shingara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358, Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. UOI & others, AIR 1976 SC 789 and Chandra Kishore Ji v. Mahavir Prasad & others, JT 1999(7) SC 256 (para 12) in support of his submission that statutory procedure has to be strictly followed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Riar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has submitted that the election was validly held; counting was proper; proceedings were correctly recorded; respondent No. 3 did not interfere with the election but merely supervised it; draw of lots was valid; respondent No. 4 was validly appointed as Presiding Officer and allegations of mala fide were without any substance. He further submitted that a statutory remedy of election petition was available under Section 74 of the Punjab State Commission Act, 1994, and in view of the disputed questions of fact, the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy. It is also pointed out that against the decision of the Election Tribunal, an appeal lies to this Court. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Anil Sharma, DAG, Punjab, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 have supported the submissions of Mr. H.S. Riar. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that no exceptional case has been made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. In view of availability of statutory remedy, the petitioner should be relegated to the same. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.