IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1827 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1827 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1827 OF 2006 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 1867 OF 2006 Mr. Hasmukh Amritlal Mehta ..Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. M.A. Mehta for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI SHRI SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 28th JULY, 2008. : 28th JULY, 2008. : 28th JULY, 2008. P.C.: . Heard. 2. The Petitioner has came to this Court in his capacity as an Office bearer. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the year 1963, he became a member of the Respondent No.2 i.e. Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council and during all these years, he has observed certain grave irregularities and illegalities in financial and other matters, which have affected the reputation of the Petitioner and caused him financial loss. : 2 : 3. The Petitioner has summed up these irregularities and illegalities committed by Respondent No.2. The Petitioner states that the staff working at Respondent No.2 have filed grievances relating to sex scandals thereby the institution reputation has been lowered down in the eyes of people and that Respondent No.2 has failed to utilize the grant received from Government of India in a proper manner thereby causing loss to Respondent No.2 and ultimately the Plastic Industry has suffered, which is the industrial loss. He seeks reliefs against Respondent No.1 and 2 to hold an appropriate enquiry through an officer from the cadre preferably from high ranking official of cadre of IPC/IRS/IAS along with one of the Deputy Director of the Respondent No.2 from the region other than Mumbai against the Respondent No.3 and other concerned in Respondent No.2. 3. In his Petition, the Petitioner has specifically pleaded that he has forwarded his grievances to various Authorities i.e. Ministry of Commerce & Industries, New Delhi and Vigilance Department, Government of India and deputed a team from the Vigilance Department to examine the said issues. : 3 : 4. In our view, it will not be appropriate for this Court to undertake such exercise in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The Petitioner may prosecute his grievances with the authorities which are supposed to look into the affairs. 5. In so far as the claim of loss suffered by the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner has an alternative remedy and he can very well approach the Civil Court and seek compensation for the loss suffered by him. Therefore, we do not find any merits in this Petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. 6. In view of the order passed in the Petition, the Notice of Motion taken out by the Petitioner does not survive and the same stands dismissed. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. Patel, J.) Patel, J.) Patel, J.) (K.K. (K.K. (K.K. Tated, J) Tated, J) Tated, J)