Amitava Lala and Sanjay Misra, JJ.: - Petitioner's contention is that he is to be declared elected unopposed as on the relevant date there was no name of any other candidate available except the name of the petitioner, but instead of de­claring the same, subsequently some can­didates were brought to contest the elec­tion. Since we have disposed of similar type of matter today itself i.e. 22nd October, 2010 in the morning, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63326 of 2010 (Smt. Vimalesh v. State of U.P. and others), such order will be applicable in this case also. The or­der dated 22nd October, 2010 passed in Smt. Vimalesh (supra) is quoted below: "The petitioner's contention is that her nomination paper was accepted as a sole candidate of the concerned particular ward. Though it is not being formally de­clared as elected but her name came in the newspaper as declared. Subsequently she found that instead of formal declaration nomination of the candidate of another ward has been transferred to this ward to contest the election for which she has made her representation. Since Rule 21 of The Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules, 1994 says that at the time declaring the list if the Election Commission finds that there is one contest­ing candidate for a constituency, he shall forthwith declare such candidate as duly elected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner marked upon the word (forthwith) how­ever, being aggrieved she made a represen­tation to the Election Commission. We have fortified that there are two nominations, one is on behalf of the peti­tioner and another is on behalf of the re­spondents. The petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in 1999 AIR (SC) 1723 and 1999 SCC 4 - 526 wherein it has been held powers under Article 226 of the Con­stitution has no bar in interfering with the matter regarding election. Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exer­cised when there is any act which is against any provision of law or violative of consti­tutional provisions and when recourse cannot be had to the provisions of the Act for the appropriate relief. On the other hand learned Counsel ap­pearing for the Election Commission has relied upon a Division Bench judgement dated 12.10.2010 in a bunch of cases, lead­ing case No. Civil Misc. On the other hand learned Counsel ap­pearing for the Election Commission has relied upon a Division Bench judgement dated 12.10.2010 in a bunch of cases, lead­ing case No. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62547 of 2010 (Braj Bihari v. State of U.P. and others) whereupon taking into account sev­eral aspects of the matter the Court held that these disputes can be resolved by an election petition under section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as per proce­dure laid down in U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. Against this background we do not want to interfere with the matter since after the notification of the election. Therefore we dismiss this writ petition, however without imposing any cost. In any event it is desirable that the Election Commission may consider the grievance of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible before polling. A certified copy of this order be given to learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day on payment of usual charges." 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. Petition Dismissed.