IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 37 OF 2008 Bhagatraj G. Ahuja ... .... .... ..Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors... .... .... ..Respondents Mr.B.G.Ahuja petitioner-in-person. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 17th JULY 2008. PC: We have heard the petitioner who appears in person claiming the petition to be public interest litigation. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of direction to the State to take help of various provisions under the Indian Penal Code and take action by nipping the dangerous and illegal activities of respondent No.5. Further he has prayed for issuance of an injunction against said respondent from making any separative statements. And lastly he claims that Election Commissioner of India should be directed to deal with party of respondent No.5 and has prayed for various interim orders and ancillary reliefs. 2. Having heard the petitioner we are of the constrained view that prayer (c) of the writ petition would not lie as this is not the proper Forum for the petitioner in regard to prayer made in writ petition. Thus we reject this prayer, of course, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Election Commissioner of India or any other appropriate authority in accordance with law if he so deems fit and proper. This Court in exercise of its powers 1 under Article 226 at this stage cannot entertain this request. 3. As far as prayer (b) is concerned such a relief can hardly be granted in law much less in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This relief, firstly is not properly worded and the petitioner is unable to show that such relief can be granted. 4. After referring to certain incidents in writ petition the petitioner has made prayer (a) praying that the respondent be directed to take action under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that they have taken appropriate action in accordance with law and certain orders are already passed under section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they would take such action as is permissible in accordance with the law, if need be. He also states that one such order pased under section 144 was challenged before the Sessions Judge by the respondent No.5 by filing a criminal Revision Application. The Sessions Judge had stayed the order and aggrieved thereby Criminal Writ Petition No.457 of 2008 was filed by the State. The State Government is said to have succeeded in the said writ petition. It is pointed out that the State has been taking prompt action against the objectionable activities. In the light of the above, we do not see any reason to keep this writ petition pending before this Court. However we expect the State to take further steps in accordance with law. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 2