1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6279 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6279 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6279 OF 2008 Shri Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit. ...Petitioner Versus The Lokayukta Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.Behere, Addl. G.P. for respnodent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 3rd October, 2008. DATE: 3rd October, 2008. DATE: 3rd October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by a communication dated 2.2.2008 from the Lokayukta. It appears that the Lokayukta has forwarded the complaint made to him to the Commissioner for Sugar and asked him to submit a report on the allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioner. 2 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the Petitioner is not within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and therefore, the whole exercise is without jurisdiction. This argument cannot be accepted at this stage as there is no order against the petitioner. Admittedlty, the Commissioner for Sugar is subject to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta and if the Lokayukta finds that the Commissioner for Sugar has failed in his duty to supervise the petitioner, who was within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Sugar, nothing would stop the Lokayukta to proceed in the matter. For this reason, we do not find merit in this Petition. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. 4. As of today, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file a petition. However, in future, if the petitioner has any cause of action, it is at liberty to take appropriate remedy available in law. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)