JUDGMENT S.K. Mishra, J.-- In this writ application, the petitioner, a candidate for the office of the Sarpach of Mitrapur Grama Panchayat election, has assailed the Notification issued by the State Election Commission putting restrictions on the use of name of any political party in the campaigning for the election. 2. On 23.12.2011, as per the Gazette Notification, the Government of Orissa in the Panchayati Raj Department have called upon all Grama Panchayats to elect Ward Members and Sarpanches and for election of Panchayat Samiti members. The said notification also included election for the offices of the Members of Zilla Parishad. In accordance with the scheduled given by the Election Commission, the nominations have been filed. After withdrawal of candidature and allotment of symbols, the contesting candidates have started campaigning. The election is scheduled to be held in five phases i.e. on 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th and 19th February, 2012 throughout the State. 3. In the said election, almost all political parties participate and field candidates. The Election Commissioner consults and seeks cooperation from the parties to conduct free and fair election. While matters stood thus, the opposite party no.2 issued a letter on 19.01.2012 directing all the District Magistrates and Collectors of the State to bar the contesting candidates for the post of Sarpanches, Panchayat Samiti members and Ward Members not to campaign by using the name of any political party. Such notification has been assailed by the petitioner as violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ application. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commissioner submitted that the Notification issued the State Election Commissioner is in pursuance of Rule 20 of the Grama Panchayat Election Rules, 1965 as well as Rule 5 of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti (Election) Rules, 1991. It is further contended that the circular is basically made for a free and fair election and all the contesting candidates are directed not to write to be party sponsored candidates as it contradicts the provisions of law and destroy basic objects of 73rd constitution amendment. The Circular of the State Election Commission is stated to be justified and conforms to the standard of democracy, inasmuch as, the voting is being conducted in a free and fair manner and on the basis of the symbols allotted to the respective candidates under the rules. The Circular of the State Election Commission is stated to be justified and conforms to the standard of democracy, inasmuch as, the voting is being conducted in a free and fair manner and on the basis of the symbols allotted to the respective candidates under the rules. The learned counsel further submitted that the claim of the petitioner that the right of the petitioner is infringed is misconceived as it is settled law that the right to elect is not a fundamental right. Therefore, it is urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commissioner to dismiss the writ application. 5. In order to understand the matters involved in this case, it is profitable to refer to the circular issued by the State Selection Commission. “Sir, I am directed to say that the Election programme in respect of the Three tier system of election to Panchayati Raj Institutions, 2012 has started in full swing. After withdrawal of candidature and allotment of symbols, the final list of contesting candidates in respect of the different stratum of election, the candidates contesting the elections will go for campaigning in favour of their nomination which will be completed prior to 36 hours of date of poll phase wise. It is well known that except the members of Zilla Parishads no other post like Ward Members, Sarpanches or Samiti Members is contested on party lines. It has been observed in the past that some of the candidates like Sarpanch, P.S. Members and even Ward Members which are never allotted party symbols indulge in writing “Sponsored Candidates of …….. party (DALA SAMARTHITA PRARTHY). This contradicts provisions of law. Neither they shall associate their names with any party in any form nor should any party make any public claims or display their support to them in any form. Any such action would be deemed as a violation of Code of Conduct which has to be prevented. This shall be intimated to all the Election Officers down below. Action taken in the matter may be reported to this Commission from time to time.” 6. Any such action would be deemed as a violation of Code of Conduct which has to be prevented. This shall be intimated to all the Election Officers down below. Action taken in the matter may be reported to this Commission from time to time.” 6. Thus, on the submissions made by the rival parties following two questions arise for determination in this case : Firstly, whether, the notification issued by the state Election Commission is violative of any of the fundamental rights enshrined in part-III of the Constitution and secondly, whether the said notification is in consonance with the provisions of the relevant Act and Rules guiding the Panchayati Raj elections. 7. As far as the question of violation of fundamental right is concerned, the Supreme Court in a Constitution Bench decision i.e. N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist. and others, AIR (39) 1952 SC 64 has held that the right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right but is a creature of statute or special law and must be subject to the limitations imposed by it. This view has been followed by the Supreme Court consistently. In Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya and others v. Lachhi Ram and others, AIR 1954 SC 686 . The Supreme Court further held that the right to stand as a candidate and contest an election is not a common law right. It is a special right created by the statute and can only be exercised on the conditions laid down by the statute. The fundamental right chapter has no bearing on a right like this created by statute. Persons have no fundamental right to be elected members of Parliament. If they want that they must observe the rules. Similar is the view taken by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others, (1982) I SCC 691, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the right to elect, to be elected and to dispute an election are neither fundamental rights nor common law rights but are simply statutory rights and therefore, are subject to statutory limitations. 8. Thus, from the aforesaid cases it is clear that right to elect or to be elected and the process of participating in election, the manner of participating in election are not fundamental right as they are created by the Statute. 8. Thus, from the aforesaid cases it is clear that right to elect or to be elected and the process of participating in election, the manner of participating in election are not fundamental right as they are created by the Statute. Any person who is desirous of contesting election must do so within the framework of the statute and rules framed thereunder. In this connection, a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Babu Lal Singal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 71, considered the question of not allotting a particular election symbol of a particular party to candidates belonging to that party in a Municipal election. At paragraph 9 of the said case, the Division Bench has observed that no person or a political party has a right to contest the election to the local bodies on a particular specified symbol. It is true that the political parties are inherent part of democratic polity in our system but it does not confer any special right upon such political parties to claim the allotment of a particular symbol for the purpose of election to the local bodies which are claimed to be being held on non political party basis. In that case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the election commission decision to exclude the symbols of political parties recognized by the Election Commission at the national and State level and all political parties have been treated alike. Thus, it is clear that there has been no violation of any fundamental rights by issuing all the instruction as contained in the aforesaid letter issued by the State Election Commission. 9. Article 243K of the Constitution of India provides for elections to the Panchayats. It provides that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor. The State Election Commissioner is an independent person and he can not be removed by any authority and his removal can be sought in the manner of a Judge of the High Court is removed, i.e. through impeachment. The State Election Commissioner is an independent person and he can not be removed by any authority and his removal can be sought in the manner of a Judge of the High Court is removed, i.e. through impeachment. Thus, the State Election Commissioner has been given the mandate to supervise, direct and control the preparation of the electoral rolls as well as conduct of election in the State. Similar provisions appear at Article 324, which provides for superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission. It is regarding elections to the offices of President, Vice-President as well as to the Parliament and Legislative assembly. In interpreting the power vested on the election Commission, the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) I SCC 405, held that the scope of Election Commissioner’s power has to be construed widely and powers operates in the areas left unoccupied by legislation. However, the Election Commission should act bona fide and subject to rules of natural justice. Thus, it is clear from these cases that whenever there is some grey area, the Election Commissioner has the authority to fill up the gaps by issuing circulars/notifications, which are reasonable and bona fide. The same principle shall apply to the powers conferred under the State Election Commission under Article 243K of the Constitution of India. 10. Coming to the present case, it is seen that Rule 17 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Election Rules provides that there shall be ballot papers in two different colours or printed in different ink, one for the election of the Sarpanch and the other for election of the Ward Members in Form No.6. The ballot paper for election of the Sarpanch shall bear the six symbols as nominated. It is however provided that in case the number of contesting candidates exceeds the number of seats for the office of the Ward Member, the additional symbols (26 listed) shall be allotted to them in the same order, in which they are shown. Similar is the provision of the ballot papers for the election of Ward Member. Rule 20, which is inserted vide Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No.939 S.R.O. No.400/2006 dated 03.07.2006, provides that the marking system of voting shall be followed and of that purpose the symbols specified in Rule 17 shall be adopted. Similar is the provision of the ballot papers for the election of Ward Member. Rule 20, which is inserted vide Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No.939 S.R.O. No.400/2006 dated 03.07.2006, provides that the marking system of voting shall be followed and of that purpose the symbols specified in Rule 17 shall be adopted. Sub-Rule (2) provides that the list of duly nominated candidates shall be arranged in Oriya alphabetical order and symbols shall be assigned to each of them in the corresponding order in which the symbols appear in Rule 17. Sub-Rule (3) provides that in case the number of contesting candidates exceeds the number of symbols prescribed under Rule 17, the Commissioner may, by order, prescribe additional symbols to be used for the purpose. But it is provided that the Commissioner shall not prescribe such symbol as are allotted to political parties by the Election Commission of India. It is brought to the notice of the Court that all the symbols that has been mentioned in Rule 17 has not been allotted to any political party, national or regional. The prohibition on the part of the Election Commissioner not to allot symbol allotted to the political parties by the Election Commissioner is to ensure that there is no involvement of political parties in the Gram Panchayat election. 11. Similar Rule is found as far as Orissa Panchayat Samities (Election) Rules, 1991 is concerned. Rule 5 of the Panchayat Samiti Rules, 1991 provides that the symbols to be used by the Panchayat Samiti by the candidates shall be notified by the Commission from time to time and the notification under this rule shall be published in the Orissa Gazette. It is further provided that such symbols shall not include any symbol allotted to the political parties by the Election Commission of India. 12. As against such prohibition of allotment of symbols representing the political parties for the election of Grama Panchayat and Panchayat Samities, the Zilla Parishad election stands in a different footing. Rule 7 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Election) Rules, 1994 enables the candidates for a Zilla Parishad Election to contest in a political party basis and the candidate as such is entitled to use with the political party symbols. Rule 7 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Election) Rules, 1994 enables the candidates for a Zilla Parishad Election to contest in a political party basis and the candidate as such is entitled to use with the political party symbols. Thus, it is clear that the rule making authority has consciously avoided for use of symbols to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch or Ward Members and Panchayat Samiti members on political party basis. It appears that the intention of the Legislature was not to allow election to be contested at the Grama Panchayat level and the block level on party basis, otherwise they would not have made such distinction as far as symbol is concerned. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the instruction issued by the State Election Commission does not violate any fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India nor it goes against the Statute or Rules framed thereunder governing the three-tier Panchayati Raj Institutions elections. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. The interim order passed earlier is hereby vacated and the Misc. Cases filed are also disposed of. Writ Petition dismissed.