ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Dhanappa P. Panibhate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the case papers. 2. Petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs: (i) Issue direction to respondent No.3 to scrutinize nomination papers submitted by the respondents 4 to 17 properly according to Section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and call for records regarding nomination papers. (ii) As per Section 84 of the Representation of People Act. The Hon’ble Court may declare that the election of all or any of the Return Candidates as void and to declare the right and eligible candidates who fulfill the nomination procedure as per ECI rules and regulations and Representative of People’s Act, 1951 as duly elected. 3. Petitioner claiming to be a voter and a candidate for the ensuing Legislative Assembly Election for Vijayanagar Constituency, contends that he had submitted his nomination papers on 24.04.2018 from Indian New Congress Party and as per Section 33 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘RP Act’) he has filed his nomination in the prescribed Form and complied with the conditions laid down therein, including filing of affidavit in Form No.26. It is contended that third respondent who had scrutinized the nomination papers of the candidates had not allowed the petitioner to verify the nomination papers of other contesting candidates and as such petitioner submitted a representation to third respondent stating there under that other candidates had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 33 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘RP Act’) and also contended that Returning Officer had committed an error in not permitting the petitioner to verify the nomination papers of the contesting candidates. 4. He would also contend that petitioner had objected the nomination papers submitted by the other contesting candidates while it has being scrutinized and had been pointed out to third respondent that certain candidates had not opened Bank accounts one day prior to filing or on the same day before filing of the nomination papers to maintain expenditure account which was mandatory and noncompliance of this guideline of Election Commission of India should have resulted in rejection of nomination papers of Respondent Nos.4 to 17 (though referred to as R-4 to R-18 incorrectly) and the same is against Rules. Hence, contending that, on account of petitioner being not provided opportunity to verify the nomination papers of other contesting candidates i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 17 which were in violation of Sections 33 and 36 of RP Act writ petition be allowed. Hence, he has sought for a direction to Respondent No.3 to scrutinize the nomination papers submitted by Respondent Nos.4 to 17 according to Section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and to declare the election of all or any of candidates as void and to declare the right of eligible candidates who fulfill the guidelines prescribed by the ECI as candidates being declared as duty elected. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the records and the provisions of the Representation of People Act, it is required to be notice that it is trite law that, once the procedure of Election has been set in motion, no Court can interject the same, since the aggrieved person is having a remedy under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. In the event of their being any illegality committed by the Returning Officer either by improperly accepting the nomination of a candidate or rejects the same, then aggrieved party can seek for setting aside the election of elected candidate on any of the grounds indicated under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter of election. For the reasons aforesaid, petition stands dismissed.