By the Court.:-- We have heard Sri D.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus for holding the election dated 14.10.2010 of the Gram Panchayat, Mirzapur Vikas Khand-Vilaspur, Tehsil-Swar, District Rampur as illegal, invalid and thereby setting aside the same. It has also been prayed that the result of the said election be not declared. 2. According to the petitioner, election of the Gram Panchayat in question was declared and the petitioner no.1 filed his nomination paper on 28.6.2010 for contesting to the post of Member, Kshetra Panchayat, whereas the petitioner no.2 is a registered voter and had filed her nomination for the election to the post of Pradhan under the general female category on 27.9.2010. 30.9.2010 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers wherein no mistakes or errors were found and the nomination papers were accepted by the Returning Officer. It is stated that in other wards of the Gram Panchayat other persons had filed their nomination and after scrutiny, they were found to be correct and hence were accepted. On 3.10.2010 the contestants were allotted respective symbols and ballot papers in accordance thereof were published. 3. The petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner no.1 found place at Sl. No. 764, Ward No. 9 in the voter list of 2009 and the petitioners and others had been issued identity card by the Election Commission. The petitioner alleges to have a PAN Card and a driving licence, which is valid up to 06.05.2012. The grievance is that the name of the voters of the voters list of 2009 has been illegally amended and as many as 80 voters have been deleted from the list. The petitioners protested such deletion by making an application dated 15.10.2010 and 16.10.2010 by FAX to the Returning Officer and the State Election Commission, Lucknow respectively informing that the name of the 80 voters from the voters list have been illegally struck off with red ink. As a consequence thereof, the said 80 voters could not exercise their votes in the election held on 14.10.2010 and hence the election requires to be re-held and results be not declared. As a consequence thereof, the said 80 voters could not exercise their votes in the election held on 14.10.2010 and hence the election requires to be re-held and results be not declared. It has also been stated that apart from the voters list of 2009, no other voters list either amended or supplementary was issued and the election was conducted on the basis of the voters list of 2009 minus the 80 voters whose names had been deleted at the last moment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and Rules to submit that once the voters list has been published and the last date for its revision has expired and further when the last date for scrutiny of nomination has also lapsed, the voters list cannot be changed and as such if it is changed thereafter, it would be an illegality which requires interference by the Writ Court since there is no remedy of filing an Election Petition against such removal of name of voters from the voters list. He has referred to Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and submits that the grounds upon which an election can be challenged by means of an election petition do not include the above grievance as one for which the petitioner has any remedy under the Act, even after the election and hence this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner. 5. The undisputed fact as averred in the writ petition is that both the petitioners have filed nomination for election to a post in the Gram Panchayat elections and their nominations were accepted. 6. The petitioner refers to the voters list of 2009 and points out to the name of the petitioner no.1 in that list at Sl. No. 764, therefore, he was a voter. 7. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition appears to be two fold. One that his name was wrongly struck of from the voters list alongwith other voters and secondly that he was prevented from contesting the election inspite of acceptance of his nomination form for the reason that he was not a voter. 8. 7. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition appears to be two fold. One that his name was wrongly struck of from the voters list alongwith other voters and secondly that he was prevented from contesting the election inspite of acceptance of his nomination form for the reason that he was not a voter. 8. While considering the grievance of the petitioner, insofar as the first grievance is concerned to the effect that the petitioner's name has been struck off from the Electoral Roll 2009, the same is governed by the statutory provision of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994 read with U.P. Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Supplementary Provisions Order, 1999. A perusal of these Rules indicates that it is a complete Code relating to registration of electors in the voters list of the concerned panchayat. Rule 5 provides for preparation of rolls whereas Rule 7 provides for deciding claims or objection to a roll. Rule 8 is publication of rolls in draft and Rule 9 relates to claims for inclusion of name in the roll which includes claims where name is not included in the roll or a claim where name has been wrongly included in the roll or claims where name has been struck of the roll. In either of the three circumstances, it is provided that the aggrieved person can apply in Form-2 to the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. Rule 10 provides for objections to the entries in the rolls, Rule 11 provides for lodging claims and objections, Rule 12 provides for particulars to be contained in claims and objections whereas Rule 13 and 14 relate to procedure and rejection of claims filed beyond time. Notice and service of such claims or objections is contemplated in Rule 15 and an inquiry in such claims and objections is to be made under Rule 16. Rule 19 provides for final publication of the roll in Form -7 and corrections of any clerical or printing error can be made under Rule 20. The Rules require the list to be revised periodically as provided in Rule 21, whereas Rule 21-A provides an appeal from a decision under Rule 16, 18 and 21. 9. Rule 19 provides for final publication of the roll in Form -7 and corrections of any clerical or printing error can be made under Rule 20. The Rules require the list to be revised periodically as provided in Rule 21, whereas Rule 21-A provides an appeal from a decision under Rule 16, 18 and 21. 9. From the said Rule 1994, it is quite apparent that remedy for all grievances, claims and objections relating to registration of electors has been provided and irrespective of the year when a claim or objection is found to be entertainable, it would be decided in accordance with the Rules of 1994. The claims and objections can be rejected not only on inquiry and on merits but also if they are not filed within the period provided or they are not in the form or manner prescribed. Therefore, the aggrieved person has the remedy to lodge his claim/objection under the 1994 Rules, which can be decided by the case he says that there was an improper rejection of his nomination. Therefore, while his grievances relating to the voters list of 2009 can be addressed under the procedure of the 1994 Rules, his grievance regarding not being permitted to contest the election after acceptance of nomination form and allotment of symbol may be a ground as contemplated under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act for filing of an election petition, which may be considered in accordance with law. Therefore, also it is wrong to say that the petitioner has no remedy except by way of filing this writ petition. 10. There is yet another reason for this Court to restrain itself, even if the petitioner primafacie alleges such grounds to indicate that he has been deprived of his right of franchise or his right of contest. It is apparent that the right to contest the election is a statutory right and hence the grievance, if any, is governed by the Statute itself where remedy has been provided under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 and it must be availed before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 11. The issue of a challenge thrown to various actions or inactions during the period of election has been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. 11. The issue of a challenge thrown to various actions or inactions during the period of election has been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal, reported in AIR 1952 SC64, wherein paragraph 15 & 16 are quoted hereunder:- "15. It may be pointed out that article 329 (b) must be read as complimentary to clause (a) of that article. Clause (a) bars the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to such law as may be made under articles 327 and 328 relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies. It was conceded before us that article 329 (b) ousts the jurisdiction of the courts with regard to matters arising between the commencement of the polling and the final selection. The question which has to be asked is what conceivable reason the legislature could have had to leave only matters connected with nominations subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. If Part XV of the Constitution is a code by itself, i.e., it creates rights and provides for their enforcement by a special tribunal to the exclusion of all courts including the High Court, there can be no reason for assuming that the Constitution left one small part of the election process to be made the subject-matter of contest before the High Courts and thereby upset the time-schedule of the elections The more reasonable view seems to be that article 329 covers all "electoral matters". 16. The conclusions which I have arrived at may be summed up briefly as follows :- (1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election"; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the' 'election"and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress." 12. The law laid down in the aforementioned case still holds good hence there is no reason or ground made out in the present writ petition or even in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for this Court to entertain this writ petition even for the purpose of inviting a response from the respondents. 13. Admittedly, the process of election is going on and has not yet been de-notified, therefore, this writ petition requires to be dismissed in-limine also for this reason. 14. Therefore, we are of the view that insofar as the grievance of the petitioner relating to deletion of his name from the voter list of 2009 is concerned he has appropriate statutory remedy under the 1994 Rules and insofar as the grievance of the petitioner from being prevented from contesting the election even after acceptance of nomination form and allotment of symbol the petitioner may maintain an election petition after de-notification of the election on the grounds permissible under the Act. Since both the grievances of the petitioner are clearly governed by the Act and the Rules separately, hence a ground for redressal of the first grievance raised cannot be clubbed as a ground for redressal of the second grievance raised and vice-versa. 15. We are concious that a right of franchise and a right to contest an election are intrinsically entwined in common parlance for being an integral part of the democratic set up. 15. We are concious that a right of franchise and a right to contest an election are intrinsically entwined in common parlance for being an integral part of the democratic set up. But when the right to be registered as an elector is governed by the 1994 Rules and a right to contest the election as a candidate is governed by another statutory provision, then the grievance of an elector for his right to vote has to be decided under that Rule and the grievance of a contesting candidate for an electoral post has to be decided under the applicable law. 16. The situation at hand is that after the last date for preparation and publication of the electoral roll had expired as many as 80 voters were deleted by red ink from the voters list of 2009. An appeal under Rule 21-A is provided. The 1994 Rule does not bar the filing of an appeal under Rule 21-A if the election has been notified. Once the election is notified change of electoral roll thereafter may be barred as a consequence of such notification and if a change is made within this period or even at another time the 1994 Rule makes it appealable but not illegal ab-initio. It could be hit by limitation or on merits and even then the statutory remedy against such change is only under the 1994 Rules. 17. Therefore, both the grievances of the petitioners, although they relate to the election at hand cannot be clubbed as one single grievance to be adjudicated at one forum. If they are to be addressed under two separate statutory provisions then any extent of intrinsic intwinment of the two process cannot give them a common identity. Hence, even if an election petition under Section 12-C of the Act may not be maintainable regarding the first grievance it is redressable under the 1994 Rules. Unless the remedy provided therein is exhausted the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. 18. On the grievance of improper rejection of nomination undisputedly Section 12-C of the Act applies and therefore, he cannot maintain this writ petition, which even otherwise cannot be entertained, in view of the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court because the election has not yet been de-notified and it is in process. 18. On the grievance of improper rejection of nomination undisputedly Section 12-C of the Act applies and therefore, he cannot maintain this writ petition, which even otherwise cannot be entertained, in view of the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court because the election has not yet been de-notified and it is in process. The explanation to Sub-section (3) of Section 12-C of the Act clearly provides that a person who filed nomination paper at the election whether such nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall be deemed to be a candidate at the election. 19. For the aforesaid reasons no interference is required by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage, hence, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any costs.