JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard Sri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nilesh Pandey on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. Sri Nilesh Pandey files vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and seeks time for filing counter affidavit. The record reveals that copy of the writ petition was served upon Sri Nilesh Pandey at the time of filing of the writ petition as he had filed caveat on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Inspite of copy of the petition having been served upon him the opposite party no. 2 chose not to file counter affidavit till date, therefore, the prayer for time to file counter affidavit is rejected. Proceedings cannot be allowed to linger on in such a manner. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 25.10.2010 voting took place with regard to election for Gram Pradhan, Miriya, Block Kunda, district Pratapgarh. Total 1863 votes were casted out of which 1773 votes were found valid. The petitioner secured 350 votes while opposite party no. 2, Santosh Kumar, secured 349 votes. The opposite party no. 2, thereafter filed an election petition on 03.12.2010. Though no adjournment had been sought by the petitioner in the election petition, except on 26.12.2014, the Prescribed Authority on 02.10.2015 closed the evidence of the petitioner which led to filing Revision No. 1 of 2015 which was allowed by order dated 06.01.2015 setting aside the order dated 02.01.2015. On 09.01.2015 the counsel for the petitioner sought time due to personal reasons, to cross-examine P.W.3, by moving an application but the Prescribed Authority closed the opportunity of cross-examination and fixed 13.01.2015 as the date of arguments. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed another revision before the revisional authority which was partly allowed giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before the Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 12.01.2015. The said order could be served before the Prescribed Authority only on 15.01.2015 as 14.01.2015 was a holiday and certified copy of the order of revisional court was received on 13.01.2015. The order of the revisional court was taken on record by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority without complying with the said order of the revisional court and without affording opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, passed the order for recounting of votes fixing 21.01.2015 as the date for recounting of votes. The order of the revisional court was taken on record by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority without complying with the said order of the revisional court and without affording opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, passed the order for recounting of votes fixing 21.01.2015 as the date for recounting of votes. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 187(MS) of 2015 which was listed before this Court on 21.01.2015. As luck would have it, the lawyers were on strike on that day. In the meantime recounting of votes took place on 21.01.2015 wherein both the parties were found to have secured equal number of votes. Consequently the Prescribed Authority fixed 27.01.2015 for drawing the lots wherein the opposite party no. 2 was declared elected as Pradhan. 4. When the petitioner sought to amend the earlier writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 187 (MS) of 2015 by way of an amendment application it emerged that appropriate course was to file a fresh writ petition. Accordingly the said writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafter the instant writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated 15.01.2015 and 21.01.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority, declaring the result of recounting and order dated 27.01.2015 declaring the opposite party no. 2 as elected Gram Pradhan. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is firstly that the impugned orders are bad in law for the reason that the order of revisional court was ignored by the Prescribed Authority. Secondly the pleadings were absolutely vague and did not support the case for recounting in view of settled legal position by this Court and by the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) P.K.K. Shamsuddin Vs. K. A.M. Mappilai Mohindeen and others, reported in 1989 SCC 526 , (ii) Kattino Kulla Murali Vs. Veera Malla K. Rao reported in 2010(28) LCD 216 (SC), (iii) Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram reported in (2000)8 SCC 355 , (iv) Tanjaji Ram Chandra Nimhan Vs. Swati Vinayak Nimhan reported in 2006 All C.J. 707 SC, (v) Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Husain Kamil Kidwai, reported in 1964 6 SCR 238 : AIR 1964 SC 1249 , (vi) Ram Adhar Singh V. District Judge Ghazipur (FB) reported in 1986 RD 151, (vii) Govind Singh Vs. Harchand Kaur (SC) reported in 2011 (29) LCD 174 and (viii) Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C. P. Joshi (SC) reported in 2011(29) LCD 512. Husain Kamil Kidwai, reported in 1964 6 SCR 238 : AIR 1964 SC 1249 , (vi) Ram Adhar Singh V. District Judge Ghazipur (FB) reported in 1986 RD 151, (vii) Govind Singh Vs. Harchand Kaur (SC) reported in 2011 (29) LCD 174 and (viii) Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C. P. Joshi (SC) reported in 2011(29) LCD 512. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has not been able to make out a case to defend the impugned orders. 7. Apparently the Prescribed Authority proceeded in undue haste and illegal manner by ordering recounting of votes ignoring the revisional order under which he was under an obligation to give opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. 8. Even otherwise from a bare perusal of the order dated 15.01.2015 it is found that the order for recounting of votes was passed on absolutely vague and insufficient pleadings. The reasons given in the order for recounting of votes are not germane in the eye of law and also factually incorrect. The statements made in the election petition have been taken as gospel's truth. The finding that 325 votes were polled in favour of Prabhavati whereas in the counting sheet 323 votes are mentioned is not based on any evidence. It is merely the election petitioner's contention that Prabhavati had polled 325 votes but no evidence was adduced nor has it been discussed in favour of this assertion. Likewise the finding regarding total votes being 1866 as against 1863 mentioned in the counting sheet is absolutely perverse and is not supported by any evidence. The Prescribed Authority has acted purely on surmises and conjectures. In these circumstances the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the light of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Normally once the Prescribed Authority had taken a decision the appropriate course was to file a revision under Section 12-C (6) of the Panchayat Raj Act but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the apparent illegalities, the alternative remedy available against the impugned orders is not treated as an absolute bar, accordingly the writ petition has been heard on merits. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders dated 15.01.2015,21.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 are hereby quashed. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders dated 15.01.2015,21.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority to decide it afresh keeping in mind the revisional order and the observations made hereinabove, within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 11. The writ petition stands allowed.