1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 127 OF 2009 Maruti Mura Vagare ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.S.Apte, Advocate, for the petitioner (appoited as Amicus Curiae). Mr. A.H.Palekar, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 7th January, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner was an independent candidate, who had contested the election from 44-Sangli Parliamentary Constituency. He secured 4958 votes. The winning candidate secured 378620 votes. 2. Our attention is invited to a complaint dated 24.4.2009 which was addressed to the concerned Electoral Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the complaints, no action was taken. 3. The procedure for entire election process is by the Central Election 2 Commission. That is an independent organisation independent of the Government and other bodies. In our opinion, if the Election Commission has chosen not to intervene on the complaints made, that postulates that there was no sufficient material on which the Election Commission could have acted. 4. If the grievance of the petitioner is that any act on the part of any candidate involves his disqualification or setting aside the election, it would be open to such petitioner to have filed an election petition. In our opinion, under these circumstances, this would not be a fit case for us to exercise our Extraordinary Jurisdiction, more so in a PIL. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)