JUDGMENT The petitioner filed a nomination form for the elections to the Zila Panchayats as a candidate from Ward No.66, Block Biswa, District Sitapur. The case of the petitioner is that the nomination was scrutinized on 9 October 2015 and that after it was found to be in order, she was allotted a symbol of a television so as to enable her to contest the election. According to the petitioner, she came to know on the night of 16 October 2015, just before the election was to be held on 17 October 2015 that her election symbol had been changed from a television to a telephone. The petitioner then moved an application on 17 October 2015 to the Election Commission and instituted these proceedings on 26 October 2015. 2. The relief which is sought was (i) cancellation of the election to Ward No.66; (ii) a stay on the counting process; and (iii) a direction for holding a fresh election. 3. The Division Bench by its order dated 28 October 2015 observed that the petition could have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner would have to establish her case in an election petition. However, prima facie, it was observed that the action of altering an election symbol after its allotment and upon the expiry of the date of filing of nomination papers appeared to be an act without jurisdiction. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the record relating to the allotment of symbols before the Court and explain the power which was exercised. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission has, accordingly, produced the original record. The record indicates that election symbols were allotted to all candidates on 10 October 2015 and the election symbol which was allotted to the petitioner was a telephone. The order of allotment contains the signature of Ram Sewak, the spouse of the petitioner. 5. The nomination form which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition contains a pictorial affixion of the television symbol along side. However, it has been submitted before the Court by the State Election Commission that as a matter of fact, it was affixed by the petitioner herself and insofar as the State Election Commission is concerned, all symbols were allotted to the candidates only on 10 October 2015. However, it has been submitted before the Court by the State Election Commission that as a matter of fact, it was affixed by the petitioner herself and insofar as the State Election Commission is concerned, all symbols were allotted to the candidates only on 10 October 2015. Hence, it has been submitted that the election symbol which was allotted to the petitioner was that of a telephone and there was no alteration of the symbol once it was allotted. 6. The election process has already been concluded and the results have been declared. The remedy of the petitioner would lie in the form of an election petition under Rule 4 of the U.P. Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Disputes relating to membership) Rules 1994. 7. Hence, in this background, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ……………………