1.1107 1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1107 OF 2008 1.K.P.M.G.India Pvt.Ltd & anr ...Petitioners vs 1. Maharashtra State Commission for Women & ors ... Respondents. Ms.Indu Malhotra Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kevic Setalvad,Mr.T.Kanvian and Ms.Sonali Matker i.b AZB Partners for Petitioner. Mr.Niranjan Pandit for Respondent no.1 Ms.Seema Sarnaik for Respondent no.5 CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & N.D.Deshpande, JJ DATED: 18th November, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner by this petition challenges the proceedings of the complaint made by respondent no.5 before the respondent no.1. Respondent no.5 has filed an affidavit dated 1st October, 2009 stating therein that she has objection to the respondent no.1 conducting inquiry into her complaint and that she wants her complaint to be forwarded to the National Commission for women. Learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 stated that term of the Enquiry Committee which was appointed to inquire into the complaint has already expired and in view of the statement made by respondent no.5 in her affidavit referred to above, there is no question of the respondent no.1 now appointing any Enquiry Committee and that the respondent no.1 also does not have any objection to transfer the complaint back to the National Commission for Women. Learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that the National Commission for Women does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Looking to the statements made in the affidavits filed in the petition by various parties referred to above as also the oral submission made before us, in our opinion, as respondent no.5 whose complaint was being inquired into by the respondent no.1 is not willing to have that complaint investigated by respondent no.1 and as respondent no.1 also does not appear to be keen to go on with investigation in view of the stand taken by respondent no.5, grievance of the petitioner in relation to the proceedings before the respondent no.l does not survive. Petition is therefore, dismissed. However, in case again proceedings commence before the respondent no.1 the petitioner shall be at liberty to adopt such remedy as may be available to them in law including by approaching this court. 2. All contentions available to both the sides on merits are kept open. D.K.Deshmukh, J N.D.Deshpande, J