V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election of Sarpanch. Two points have been taken in the petition. One is that the District Magistrate appointed a Committee for the selection of Sarpanch while under the rules it was the duty of the District Magistrate to make the appointment. But it has nowhere been said that the appointment was made by the Committee, and in the absence of that allegation, merely because the District Magistrate had appointed a Committee, will be no ground for setting aside the election. The second ground urged is that opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 were illiterate. So far as the counter affidavit shows opposite party no. 1 is literate and he has signed in such a manner which shows that he knew Hindi very well. In any event, I need not go into this matter because under Rule 83B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules any dispute relating to ' the election of a person as Sarpanch or Sahayak Sarpanch shall be decided in a manner provided in Rule 26, for decision of disputes relating to election of Up-Pradhan. Rule 26 provides that: "Any person desiring to dispute the * election of an Up-Pradhan shall within thirty days after the date of the election present an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer of the division in which Sabha concerned is situated setting forth the grounds on which he disputes the election."
(2.) Thus the remedy of the applicant was by way of an election petition to the Sub-Divisional Officer of the division in which Sabha concerned was situated. No such petition having been filed and there being an alternative remedy open to the applicant this application in writ jurisdiction is not entertainable and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.;