1. This petition, in effect and in essence, seeks amendment in the elections laws/ procedures of the country or else a relief dehors such laws/procedures. Therefore, I feel no hesitation in mentioning at the very outset that it is not maintainable. The assertions and wishes of the petitioner as reflect from the contents of the petition are briefly noted. 2. The petitioner claims to be a senior citizen of India and, probably, a registered voter of Amirakadal Assembly Constituency, though neither stated nor supported by any document. His case is that the Amirakadal Assembly Constituency is scheduled to go to polls on 14.12.2014, but on that day he would be outside the State at Pune in Maharastra. Therefore, he would not be able to cast his vote in person at the Polling Booth in his Constituency. According to the petitioner, the respondents have a constitutional duty to see that the citizens of the county are able to cast their votes and participate in the participatory democracy, without any hassles and difficulty and for that matter cannot restrict the movement of the citizens and snatch and curtail their freedom and right to move anywhere in the country. The grievances of the petitioner, which rather represent his wishes, are contained in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the writ petition, reproduced verbatim hereunder: "7. In this electronic age a person can cast his vote from anywhere in the country or even from outside the country through internet, as is in vogue in many developed countries, and is taking fast on the traditional voting system of casting ballot in person at polling stations. 8. India being the largest democracy in the world with the second largest populated country on the globe, and not lagging behind in development in any respect, it can ill afford to stick to the crude methods of selecting the representatives and has to be abreast to modern technology and to the changed circumstances and emulate and devise new mechanism so as to make it easier for a citizen to cast his ballot from anywhere in the country or even from abroad, and hence a duty is cast on the respondents to work on those lines. 9. 9. The petitioner's right and duty to select the best representatives to run the affairs of the Government cannot be abrogated by the respondent simply by their sticking to crude and worn out methods of election. 10. Since the petitioner would not be present in his constituency and in the State on the date of polling of 14th instant, the respondent has to make arrangement and pave way for the petitioner to cast his ballot either by advance voting or by postal ballot or by proxy ballot (as is in vogue in some countries) or through internet." The petitioner has prayed for the following relief: "the respondent may be directed to make arrangement for the petitioner to take part in the participatory democracy, and to shape the destiny of the country by allowing him to cast his vote either by advance voting or by postal ballot or by proxy ballot or through internet, or through any other method whichever is feasible." 3. It is note worthy that the petitioner seems to have prepared the petition on 04.12.2014, the date borne on the petition and the affidavit. It was presented before the Registry of the Court on 09.12.2014 at 2 pm and was listed before the Court for consideration on 11.12.2012. On asking of the Court, Mr. Makroo, learned ASG, for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Shah Aamir, learned GA, on behalf of respondent no.2, waived notice for the respective respondents. They were directed to file their response by today. Mr. Makroo has not filed any response. However, Mr. R. A. Khan, learned AAG representing respondent no.2 has filed the same. 4. In the response so filed, it is stated that as per Rule 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Conduct of Election Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, for short, the Rules) voting has to be done in person by the elector at the polling station. The polling stations for all the electors of Phase-IV have already been notified and ballot papers have also been prepared. The electors specified in Rule 18 can also cast their votes through postal ballot subject to the requirements as envisaged thereunder. The petitioner does not fall under any of the categories specified in Rule 18 of the Rules. Therefore, as per the law in vogue, the petitioner can only vote in person at the prescribed polling booth and not otherwise. The electors specified in Rule 18 can also cast their votes through postal ballot subject to the requirements as envisaged thereunder. The petitioner does not fall under any of the categories specified in Rule 18 of the Rules. Therefore, as per the law in vogue, the petitioner can only vote in person at the prescribed polling booth and not otherwise. Voting by any other means is not covered by law. It is further stated that law does not permit the respondents to facilitate the petitioner for advance voting, postal ballot, proxy ballot or internet voting as prayed for. It is stated that election is being conducted on the set norms prescribed by law and respondents cannot import anything unknown to law to the liking or suitability of the petitioner. It is averred that the averments of the petitioner are hypothetical without having any legal foundation at all. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable as none of the legal, statutory or fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated. It is further stated in the response that by virtue of Section 142 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the jurisdiction of the Court is barred in the electoral matters at an intermediate stage. 5. I have heard the petitioner in person, the learned counsel for the respondents and considered the matter. 6. Section 69 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of People Act, 1957 (hereinafter, for short, the Act) provides for the manner of voting at elections. It reads as under: "69. Manner of voting at elections At every election where a poll is taken, votes shall be given by ballot in such manner as may be prescribed, and no votes shall be received by proxy." This provision of law speaks of, at least, three things: first, that the votes shall be given by ballot; second, that the manner of giving ballot shall be prescribed; and third, that no votes shall be received by proxy. One of the prayers made by the petitioner, that is vote by proxy, is thus barred by law, 7. However, Section 70 of the Act provides for special procedure for voting by certain classes of persons. It reads thus: "70. One of the prayers made by the petitioner, that is vote by proxy, is thus barred by law, 7. However, Section 70 of the Act provides for special procedure for voting by certain classes of persons. It reads thus: "70. Special procedure for voting by certain classes of persons Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in section 69, provision may be made by rules made under this Act for enabling- (a) any of the following persons to give his votes by postal ballot, and not in any other manner, at an election in a constituency where a poll is taken, namely: - i. any person whom the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 16 of this Act apply; ii. the wife of any such person as is referred to in clause (i) to whom the provisions of sub-section (6) of the said section 16 apply; (b) any person subject to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force to give his vote by postal ballot, and not in any other manner, at an election in a constituency where a poll is taken subject to the fulfillment of such requirements as may be specified in those rules; (c) any class of persons notified by the Election Commission in consultation with the Government to give their votes by postal ballot and not in any other manner at an election in a constituency where a poll is taken subject to the fulfillment of such requirements as may be specified in those rules." 8. It is thus seen that the Act provides for making provisions by rules for enabling the specified category of persons to give their votes by postal ballot and not in any other manner. The question of advance voting, proxy ballot, voting through internet or through any other method does not arise at all, since the same is not permitted by law. 9. The person mentioned in clause a(i) of Section 70 in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act refers to any person having a service qualification. The petitioner does not fall in that category. He also does not fall within the category of clause a(ii) of Section 70. He is also not subject to preventive detention under any law; therefore, he does not fall within the category of persons mentioned in clause (b) of Section 70. The petitioner does not fall in that category. He also does not fall within the category of clause a(ii) of Section 70. He is also not subject to preventive detention under any law; therefore, he does not fall within the category of persons mentioned in clause (b) of Section 70. Now remains clause (c) of Section 70. It speaks of any class of persons notified by the Election Commission in consultation with the Government subject to fulfillment of such requirements as may be specified in the rules. 10. The Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 168 of the Act, after consulting the Election Commission, has made the Rules. Rule 16 of the Rules says that all electors voting at an election shall do so in person at the polling station provided for them under Section 36 or, as the case may be, at the place of polling fixed under Section 40. Part III of the Rules provides for postal ballot. Rule 18 of the Rules under Part III specifies the persons entitled to vote by post. Rule 18, in so far as relevant, is extracted below: "18. Persons entitled to vote by post The following persons shall, subject to their fulfilling the requirements hereinafter specified, be entitled to vote by post, namely.- (a) at an election in an Assembly Constituency - (i) special voters: (ii) service voters; (iii) voters on election duty; and (iv) electors subjected to preventive detention. (b)... (c)...." Special voter is defined in sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 of the Rules to mean any person holding an office to which the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 16 are declared to apply or the wife of such person. The petitioner does not fall in that category. Service voter, in terms of sub-rule (a) of Rule 17 means a person who is required to give his vote by postal ballot under clause (a) of Section 70. As already mentioned, petitioner does not fall in that category too. He also does not fall within the definition of the voters mentioned in sub-rules (iii) and (iv) of Rule 18 of the Rules. 11. Above being the position of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner is not entitled to vote by postal ballot. Consequently, he cannot seek any direction de hors the law. He also does not fall within the definition of the voters mentioned in sub-rules (iii) and (iv) of Rule 18 of the Rules. 11. Above being the position of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner is not entitled to vote by postal ballot. Consequently, he cannot seek any direction de hors the law. Since electoral right is a statutory right, the petitioner cannot claim anything outside the statute. 12. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to do certain things to his liking. In other words, he is seeking a mandamus. A writ of mandamus would lie only if the respondents had failed to perform a statutory duty cast on them. Under the existing laws they are under no obligation to provide such facilities to the petitioner as are either barred by or not provided under law. The petition is, therefore, grossly misconceived and not maintainable. 13. In light of all what has been discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 14. Taking a lenient view, no order as to costs.