JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, petitioner in person, Sri Manish Mathur for the respondent no.1 and Sri S.B. Pandey for the respondent no.2. 2. This petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission of India to decide the first date of meeting of the 16th Assembly of Uttar Pradesh and then to announce the date of the elections that may be held in April or May, 2017 after the U.P. Board examinations. 3. The notification of the date of polls is within the exclusive domain of the Election Commission of India in view of its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory powers conferred on the Election Commission under the Representation of People Act, 1951 as well as other related laws. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Election Commission is exercising an authority which it does not possess. To the contrary, the allegation is that there is some conspiracy by the Election Commission of India in the matter of fixation of dates of polls. Certain averments have been made in the paragraphs 13 to 15 of the writ petition. The same are without any basis to construe any malafide on the part of Election Commission and the petitioner appears to have drawn up the petition for some ulterior motive. 5. The date of holding of the first meeting of the newly constituted Assembly has to be decided after the elections are held. The elections are admittedly not being held contrary to any constitutional provisions. The holding of the elections therefore as per the dates now announced to be conducted in seven phases does not suffer from any infirmity which may display any legal or constitutional infirmity. If the holding of the election does not in any way affect the powers having been exercised by the Election Commission of India, then there is no reason as to why the Constitution of the Assembly would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the election process or issue any such direction to the Election Commission of India. The petitioner has appeared in person and has argued his case, but we do not find any reason to entertain the same. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the election process or issue any such direction to the Election Commission of India. The petitioner has appeared in person and has argued his case, but we do not find any reason to entertain the same. The petition does not raise any substantial ground so as to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. The writ petition is accordingly rejected.