IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12989 of 2010 MANOJ YADAV, SON OF SOBUJ LAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANJARKATTA, P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, SURFACE TRANSPART AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ARARIA AT PURNIA BIHAR 4. THE DISTRICT GISTRATE, ARARIA 5. THE COMPETENT OFFICER-CUM-DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ARARIA COLLECTORATE, ARARIA 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, NARPATGANJ BRANCH, DISTRICT ARARIA 7. JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE DORIK PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANJANKAL, P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. ------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 23-11-2010 This writ application has been filed by the petitioner Manoj Yadav who claims to be the President of Maharshi Mehi Ashram which has its branch Ashram at Panjarkatta within the district of Araria. The main seat of the said Ashram is at Kupaghat, Bhagalpur. The dispute has arisen between respondent no. 7 Jagdish Prasad Yadav who claims that he is the President of the Ashram at Panjarkatta, whereas the petitioner claims that he has been duly appointed by the Central Body which runs the Ashrams at Bhagalpur as President. Some lands belonging to the Ashram are being acquired by the National Highway for broadening of the road. An award has been prepared in the name of the Ashram and deposited in the bank account vide Annexure-1 wherein the respondent no. 7 has been shown to be the person who operates the account. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 - 2 - cannot be resolved either by the National Highway Authority or the Land Acquisition Officer since the amount of the award has already been deposited in the account of the Ashram. The dispute as to who is the person who will operate the account of the Ashram at Narpatganj can only be decided by the Central Body. The petitioner and the respondent no. 7 may approach the person concerned to resolve this dispute. The writ application filed by the respondent no. 7 and the petitioner basically have been filed to get an order from this Court declaring one or the other party to be authorized to operate the bank account and thereby get a superior claim for the purposes of being treated as the President of the Ashram. I do not think that this Court can pass any order in favour of either of the parties in this matter. It should finally be decided by the Central Body. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)