JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Dr. Lal Bahadur, petitioner (in person) as well as Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 - Election Commission of India. 2. The petitioner who has appeared in person has assailed the action of the Returning Officer whereby his nomination papers have been rejected by means of order dated 24.01.2019. 3. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 24.04.2019, passed by the Returning Officer. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for directing the respondents to accept nomination papers of the petitioner and permit him to contest the elections of 55 Parliamentary Constituency, Ambedkar Nagar which is scheduled to be held on 12.05.2019. 4. The petitioner has submitted that with a view to contest the Parliamentary Elections for Ambedkar Nagar constituency, he has filed his nomination papers on 23.04.2019 in three sets and has also completed all the formalities and annexed all the required documents at the time of filing his nomination papers. The Returning Officer has raised objection that in Form 26 as well as in other columns some spaces were left vacant by the petitioner. 5. Grievance of the petitioner is that no date and time was provided to him to remove the above defects and without affording him any opportunity of hearing or giving any cogent reasons, his nomination papers have been rejected in most illegal and arbitrary manner. 6. In oder to substantiate his arguments petitioner has relied upon Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 - Election Commission of India submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the consistent stand taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, (1952) AIR SC 64 , that such matters has have been raised by the petitioner can be duly adjudicated by means of Election Petition, under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken by the petitioner for relief sought by him. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Undoubtedly the nomination papers of the petitioner have been rejected by the Returning Officer wherein it has been indicated that in Form 26 all the columns have not been filled which lead to the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner. 10. The law regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this regard is well settled. In the case of Avtar Singh Hit Vs. DElhi Shikh Gurdwara Management Committee, (2006) 8 SCC 487 , the Apex Court in paragraph nos. 19, 20, 22 and 23 has held as under : "19. It is well settled principle that where elections are conducted in accordance with the provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a remedy of settlement of election disputes by filing an election petition before a tribunal, it is that remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse cannot be taken to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view has been taken in series of decisions rendered by this Court. The earliest decision was rendered in N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, MANU/SC/0049/1952 by a Bench of six learned Judges. In this case the nomination paper of the appellant for election to Madras Legislative Assembly was rejected by the Returning Officer. The appellant challenged the rejection of the nomination paper by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer on account of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which says that 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. In appeal this Court examined the question whether the writ petition would be maintainable at the initial state against an order rejecting the nomination paper. In appeal this Court examined the question whether the writ petition would be maintainable at the initial state against an order rejecting the nomination paper. Certain observations made in para 9 of the reports are relevant and they are being reproduced below: "The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. Any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court...." 20. In para 12 it was observed: Where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. It will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act to draw that the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. 22. The same view has been taken in regard to the elections held in accordance with some statutory provision where Article 329(b) of the Constitution is not applicable and they are not governed by Representation of the People Act. In K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, (1977) AIR SC 1703, the dispute related to election to Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh under the Indian Advocates Act and Rule 31 of Election Rules framed by Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh provided that all disputes arising under the Rule shall be decided by a tribunal to be known as an election tribunal. The defeated candidate approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election which was allowed by the High Court. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court with the following observations: "Where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the Court should keep its hands off. The defeated candidate approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election which was allowed by the High Court. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court with the following observations: "Where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the Court should keep its hands off. This is more particularly so where the dispute relates to an election. Still more so where there is a statutorily prescribed remedy which almost reads in mandatory terms." 23. In Gujarat University v. Shri N.U. Rajguru, (1988) 1 SCR 899 : MANU/SC/0380/1987 : , the dispute related to election to the Court of Gujarat University. Some teachers challenged the holding of elections by means of a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed. In appeal this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court with the following observations: "It is well settled that where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a fundamental or common law right instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by- passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies." 11. From the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Avtar Singh Hit (supra), it is quite clear that the petitioner has remedy of challenging the orders impugned in this writ petition with regard to rejection of his nomination by way of election petition before the Tribunal and the writ petition at this stage would not be maintainable. 12. In the light of discussion made above, the writ petition is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.