Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner-Smt. Manjit Kaur has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the election result (Annexure P-3) of the members of the Gram Panchayat Majra, Block Narot Jaimal Singh, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur being illegal and void. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the election of Gram Panchayat she contested the election of Panch, which was held on 26.5.2008, as per the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Out of five seats of the Member Gram Panchayat, Village Majra, two seats of Panches were reserved for Women in the General Category, one seat for Male Member, one for Scheduled Caste Male and one for Backward Class Male. It is further the case of the petitioner that she contested the said election against the two reserved seats for Women. After the poll, which was held on 26.5.2008, the petitioner along with one Poonam Saini, was declared elected against the reserved category of Women. Petitioner secured 71 votes whereas Poonam Saini secured 76 votes. Subsequently, the result was sent to the Returning Officer for its notification but the Returning Officer with a mala fide intention changed the result and declared Gurpreet Kaur-respondent No. 7 as elected Panch and the petitioner who was already declared elected was shown to be defeated and the said result was notified vide Annexure P-3. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said election result by filing the present writ petition. 4. In pursuance to the notice issued, written statement has been filed by respondent No. 7. In the written statement, it has been stated that petitioner did not contest the said election against the reserved category of Women. In her nomination paper she did not fill any category of post or which she had applied, therefore, she was considered as a General Category candidate. By taking into consideration that she has secured less votes than Raghbir Singh who was elected as a General Category candidate, Presiding Officer has rightly prepared the result and declared the petitioner not elected vide Annexure P-3. 5. During the course of arguments, it has been depicted that if the petitioner is considered to have contested the election in the General Category then she has secured less votes than Raghbir Singh and Bansi Singh who have been declared elected. 5. During the course of arguments, it has been depicted that if the petitioner is considered to have contested the election in the General Category then she has secured less votes than Raghbir Singh and Bansi Singh who have been declared elected. It is also an admitted position that in the nomination paper the petitioner has nowhere mentioned that she is contesting the election against the reserved category of Women. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is a disputed question as to whether the petitioner has contested the election for the post of Panch against the reserved category of Women or against the General Category and such disputed question of fact, particularly, when the election of Gram Panchayat has been notified under Section 13 of the Act vide Annexure P-3 can only be determined in an election petition. In similar situation, the Supreme Court in Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer Hilsa-cum-Re-turning Officer and Ors. A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1746, has held that in such situation the only remedy available to the defeated candidate is to file the election petition. 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of election petition. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. Petitioner is relegated to avail her alternative remedy of election petition.