ORDER : 1. A Water Users Association (WUA) was constituted for water usersi area under the ayacut of Jaffar Guda tank in Bata Singaram village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The first petitioner was elected as its President on 17-6-1997 and the second petitioner is a member of the said WUA. The Election Authority issued a notification for conducting elections to the said WUA on 29-10-2003. The voters' list was published in accordance with A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (‘the Act’) and the rules known as A.P. Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems (Delineation and Formation of Water Users Associations) Rules, 2003 (hereafter called ‘the Delineation Rules’). The petitioners state that the name of petitioner No. 1 was not found in the voters' list though he is a landholder of the land in Sy. Nos. 250, 251, 295, 296 and 303 to 305 situated in Jaffar Guda village, and, therefore, it is alleged, he made representations on 20-10-2003, 21-10-2003, 22-10-2003 and 23-10-2003. This writ petition is filed on 28-10-2003 praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not staying the election on the application filed by the petitioners and not hearing the second appeal as illegal. In W.P.M.P. No. 28521 of 2003, they prayed for an order of stay of election scheduled on 29-10-2003. 2. The petitioners filed second appeal on 27-10-2003 and filed the writ petition on 28-10-2003 on the ground that the Joint Collector did not pass orders immediately. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution itself being alternative remedy, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Be that as it is, with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Govt. Pleader for Irrigation, I have gone through the Delineation Rules. 3. Rule 9 of the Delineation Rules provides for preparation of landholders list, voters' list and water users' list. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 requires the District Collector or the Authorised Officer to prepare a list of landholders in Form “B” and territorial constituency-wise voters' list in Form “D.” Such lists have to be displayed on the notice board of the concerned Gram Panchayat and Mandal Parishad as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 9. Any person may file objections either in Form “G” or Form “F” or Form “H” under Rule 9(5). Any person may file objections either in Form “G” or Form “F” or Form “H” under Rule 9(5). If objections are not received or after considering the objections, a final list of territorial constituency-wise voters' list has to be published under Rule 9 (6), Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, if a person is aggrieved by the territorial constituency-wise voters' list in Form “D” prepared as per Rule 9(2), an appeal has to be preferred at that stage. After publication of final list in Form “I” showing the deletions and additions, no appeal lies under Rule 10. Therefore, the District Collector has no power to sit in appeal over the final list of voters on publication of Form “I.” The action of the respondents, therefore, in not passing any orders cannot be said to be Illegal. Further, it is well settled that when once election notification is issued, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. A reference may be made to Gujarat University N.U. Rajgun, AIR 1988 SC 66 wherein the Supreme Court considered the question whether it is permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by Gujarat University Act for determination of the election dispute. The Supreme Court held: “It is well settled that where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or Institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a fundamental or common law right instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily, the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies.” 4. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.