Judgment :- V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Rahamath Ali, for M/s.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s. G.R.Associates, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to conduct a re-poll for Uppalam Assembly Constituency in Puducherry State on a day to be notified as per the direction of this Court in view of the irregularity committed in the General Election-2011 held for the said Uppalam Constituency on 13.4.2011. 3. The petitioner was a candidate for general election to Puducherry legislative assembly for Uppalam Constituency and he has been allotted with the free symbol of "Gas Stove" by the Election Commission for which respondents 3 and 4 issued a Certificate on 30.3.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the poster displaying the details of contesting candidates as per Form 7-A under Rule 10(1) of the Conduct of the Election Rules, instead of "Gas Stove", the symbol of "Gas Cylinder" was shown against the petitioner's name. Being aggrieved of the action of the respondents, the petitioner gave representation to the fourth respondent on 13.4.2011 itself. Unless repolling is done, the petitioner's right will be defeated. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the relief as stated supra. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that as soon as the error as crept in the poster displaying the symbol of "Gas Cylinder" instead of "Gas Stove" was brought to the notice of the respondents on 13.4.2011, immediately arrangements were made to rectify the mistake in all the polling stations. This was done without any loss of time. No other symbol was displayed as claimed by the petitioner and the same has been intimated to the petitioner on 18.4.2011 itself. The writ petition is not maintainable in view of the Bar as contemplated under Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is seen that the petitioner was a candidate for the General Election to Puducherry Legislative Assembly for Uppalam Constituency and he was allotted with the symbol of 'Gas Stove' by the Election Commission and a certificate to that effect was also issued on 30.3.2011. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is seen that the petitioner was a candidate for the General Election to Puducherry Legislative Assembly for Uppalam Constituency and he was allotted with the symbol of 'Gas Stove' by the Election Commission and a certificate to that effect was also issued on 30.3.2011. While so, in the poster display of the contesting candidates, as per Form 7-A under Rule 10(1) of the Conduct of the Election Rules, instead of 'Gas Stove', the symbol of 'Gas Cylinder' was shown against the petitioner's name, which was immediately brought to the notice of the respondents on 13.4.2011 itself. Immediately, the respondents, on noticing the error crept in, in the display, rectified the symbol of 'Gas Cylinder' with 'Gas Stove' without any loss of time. The said action has also been intimated to the petitioner on 18.4.2011. Based on the above error crept in, the petitioner now seeks for re-poll in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Article 329 of the Constitution of India specifically provides for a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. It reads thus: "329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any Court. (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature." 8. When Article 329(b) mandates prohibition in hearing an election matter and when it also authoritatively indicates that such matter can be called in question only by way of an election petition and considering the fact that the grievance of the petitioner was immediately redressed, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and, accordingly, we dismiss the same as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. also stands dismissed.