JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.- Glaiming himself to be the President of Janata Dal, Chhotanagpur San thai Pargana Region, the petitioner has approached this Court through the medium of writ petition CWJC No. 3620 of 1997(R) seeking the following reliefs: "It is therefore prayed that your Lordship may admit this application and issue calling upon the Election Commission as to why it be not directed to under Paragraph-17 of Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968: Notifications containing lists of Political Party and Symbols-the name of the petitioner should be added in the Notification dated 22.7.1993 as the President of Chhotanagpur Santhal Pargana Janata Dal under the provision of Paragraph 3 of Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and also that the petitioner will be the authorized person to allot the Election Symbol "Chakra" to the candidates of Janata Dal in Chhotanagpur Santhal Pargana Region under the provisions of Paragraph 4 of Election Symbol (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. On return of the Rule and after hearing the petitioner Your Lordship may allow the writ and make the Rule absolute and pass such other order or orders, direction/directions for doing conseniable and equitable justice to the petitioner in this case." 2. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide his judgment dated 7th September, 2004 with the following observation: "Since all these questions were discussed by the respondent-Commission and it had already divided the party into two groups, in which the Apex Court did not interfere, I think that this matter now is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to be considered or even interfered with. Once every thing have been settled, no further comment can be given by this Court because the party had already being divided into two groups it will not be proper for this Court to order for reunification and in consequence for directing reintroduction of Chakra Symbol which has been frozen or the other prayer made by the petitioner. In the result, this writ is dismissed. 3. The petitioner, who has appeared in person, has argued this matter challenging the judgment of the writ Court primarily on the ground that the writ Court has failed to appreciate the contents of para-15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. In the result, this writ is dismissed. 3. The petitioner, who has appeared in person, has argued this matter challenging the judgment of the writ Court primarily on the ground that the writ Court has failed to appreciate the contents of para-15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. It is submitted that in para 15 of the order of 1968, reference is made only to one recognized political party and therefore, the order of the Election Commission dated 22nd July, 1993 recognizing two political parties namely Janata Dal (A) headed by Sri Ajit Singh and other Janata Dal (B) headed by S.R. Bommai is illegal and contrary to para-15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. It is further submitted that under para 15 of the said order only one recognized political party is to be allotted the Symbol and hence the order passed by the Election Commissioner be quashed and direction be issued .to the Election Commission to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the Notification dated 23rd July, 1993, as the President of Janata Dal, Chhotanagpur Santhal Pargana and a further direction be issued to authorize the petitioner to allot symbols to the candidates for Assembly, Council, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha elections. 4. We have heard the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents. The prayer of the petitioner has no constitutional legal dimensions. The claim of the petitioner is based on totally misconstruction and misinterpretation of para-15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. 5. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, referred to the judgment of the Apex Court whereby the order of the Election Commissioner dated 22nd July, 1993 recognizing two groups and two political parties is not interfered. Apart from the above, under para 13 of 1968 Order, the Election Commission has no role to authorize any office bearer of the political party for allotment of symbol. It is the political party itself who has to authorize its President, Secretary and any other office bearer to allot the symbol to a candidate in an election. As regards the prayer of the petitioner for uniting two or more splinter groups of erstwhile Janata Dal, we are afraid that the Court has any role to play in this regard. It is the political party itself who has to authorize its President, Secretary and any other office bearer to allot the symbol to a candidate in an election. As regards the prayer of the petitioner for uniting two or more splinter groups of erstwhile Janata Dal, we are afraid that the Court has any role to play in this regard. No direction can be issued by the Court that too a writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of an individual whose own status needs to be established with the concerned groups. The issue is purely political in nature and this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such issues. We have perused the judgment of the learned single Judge and in our considered opinion there is no scope for interference with the order of writ Court. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-I agree.