Judgement SRIVASTAVA, J.:- The petitioners in each of these three petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution assail the decision of the respondents to treat the election held on 15-987 as cancelled; and the fresh election held on 6-10-87, for "Gram Panchayat" from village Shergoan in the West Kameng District of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioners were candidates at the election of Gram Panchayat held on 15-9-87. The petitioners allege that the group votes were not counted, the election process was not completed, and at the instance of higher authority fresh election as per notice dt. 1-10-87, were held on 6-10-87. The petitioners contention is that the procedure adopted was against the rules and was illegal. 3. The respondent have refuted the allegations, and have stated that following the election held on 15-9-87, there was serious dissension among the candidates as to the method of counting of votes, and in anticipation of serious breach of law and order, the Deputy Commissioner apprised the Government of the situation, and also decided that it would be just and fair, if re-election was conducted on ward-basis and accordingly reelection was ordered and held on 6-10-87. The allegation that the action was taken at the behest of the higher authorities was denied. 4. We have heard Shri A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. N.K. Sing, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, for the respondents. 5. The election was for Gram Panchayat. It is defined in S.2, Cl. (vii) of the North East Frontier Agency Panchayat Raj Regulation, 1967 (3 of 1967), it reads:- " Gram Panchayat means a body of persons elected according to the tribunal customary methods by the residence of any village as the Deputy Commissioner may specify in this behalf in the prescribed manner." 6. Shri A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has referred to R. 7 of the North-East Frontier Agency Panchayat Raj (Constitution) Rules, 1968 but the said rules are for election to Anchal Samiti and Zila Parishad and have no application to the election of Gram Panchayats. 7-8. The rules for Gram Panchayats are the Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1972 of which the relevant Rr. 5 to 9 have been extracted in the petition itself. The aforesaid rules i.e., Rr. 7-8. The rules for Gram Panchayats are the Arunachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1972 of which the relevant Rr. 5 to 9 have been extracted in the petition itself. The aforesaid rules i.e., Rr. 5 to 9, do not anywhere lay down as to how the election is actually to be held or the votes cast at the election shall be counted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not shown any other rules. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the above noted rules are the only rules on the subject. There is thus no law or rule specifically, on the basis of which, it may be said that the action taken and impugned in these petitions was in violation of any law, contained therein. 8-9. While as a broad and general principle we do agree that once a system of election process is commenced and followed, it should be normally completed as provided visualised or understood, but where such process not provided for by law as such, is discontinued for justifiable reasons and recourse is taken to a better rational or intelligible process to achieve the same object, the latter need not be rejected just because it is a deviation from the earlier process. 10. It may be noted that the election process of Gram Panchayat in Arunachal Pradesh it appears was deliberately left flexible in early stage of its inception in that it was provided that the election was to be according to the tribunal customary, methods by the residents of any village as the, Deputy Commissioner may specify in that behalf in the prescribed manner. The flexibility adopted in the system could well be due to the diverse conditions which have existed in the territory inhabited by different tribes, with different traditions, customs and practices, in which a uniform system at that grass root level was possibly not considered advisable or feasible and it was left to the Deputy Commissioner to adopt the customary method as was feasible or could work. In the absence of any specific law, therefore, where the Deputy Commissioner adopted a different system for justifiable reasons, in a sensitive remote border territory, we would rather refrain from interfering in the matter, in exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution. 11. In the absence of any specific law, therefore, where the Deputy Commissioner adopted a different system for justifiable reasons, in a sensitive remote border territory, we would rather refrain from interfering in the matter, in exercise of powers under Art.226 of the Constitution. 11. In the present case, it has been stated that the election which was held on 15-9-87, some system of group election not to be adopted. As stated by the petitioner, there were two groups, one, yellow and other green, and there were seven independent candidates including the petitioners. As has been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition it appears that there was controversy and dissension among candidates and concerned person on account of the method to be followed for counting. The statement was not controverted for no rejoinder was filed. In such a situation, the Deputy Commissioner after discussion, including with petitioner, appears to have decided not to continue the election process commenced on 15-9-87, but decided to hold fresh election on ward basis, and for that purpose made reference to the Government, which gave its approval. This was notified to the persons concerned on 1-10-87 and the election was held on ward basis on 6-10-87. 12. On careful consideration, we have not been able to find any fault in the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, for we think that election on ward basis makes more sense being more intelligible and what is more significant appears to have been accepted by the people. The election was held and one of the petitioner (Civil Rule No. 1261/87) had also participated in the fresh election as a candidate, and other petitioners in other petitions too had not been prevented from participation in the fresh election. 13. It may be noted that even though the petitioners got intimation of the decision to hold election on ward basis on 1-10-87, the petitioners did not approach this Court immediately, but one of them, as stated earlier even participated in the fresh election held. Moreover, we think that no worthwhile purpose shall be served in undoing what has been done, which as said before, was not in violation of any specific law. 14. Shri Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that even though the petitioners had arrayed the Deputy Commissioner as party, the said authority had not filed any counter affidavit. Moreover, we think that no worthwhile purpose shall be served in undoing what has been done, which as said before, was not in violation of any specific law. 14. Shri Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that even though the petitioners had arrayed the Deputy Commissioner as party, the said authority had not filed any counter affidavit. While it is true that the Deputy Commissioner himself has not sworn counter-affidavit an officer of the administration in the district has sworn the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of all the respondents and we therefore, do not find any merit in this submission. 15. For the aforesaid reasons these petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.