IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C No.9729 of 2010 1. RUBY KUMARI, wife of Sri venkatesh Sharma, R.O.V- Uchchuli, P.S-Khijarsarai, distt-Gaya. 2. Aniket Kumar, son of Sri girija yadav, R.O.V-Pirkhansara, p.O- Muksudpur, P.s.-Khijarsarai, dist-gaya. 3. nand kishore Prasad albela, son of sri bali Prasad mandal resident of village- pirkhansara, P.O. Muksudpur, P.s. Khijarsarai, dist-Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 4. The Block Development Officer, Khijarsarai, Gaya., 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Gaya. 6. The mukhiya, Gram panchayat raj uchchu8li, khijarsarai, Gaya. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat raj uchchuli, khijarsarai, Dist-Gaya. 8. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. ----------- 2 14.2.2011 The writ application is more of wagering with complete lack of bonafide as it emerges from the record of the case. . First a writ application was filed which was C.W.J.C No. 11174 of 2007 which had challenged Annexure-1 dated 3.7.2007. It came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge in terms of Annexure-9, a copy whereof has been annexed with the writ application. In the present writ application same Annexure-1 is under challenge which is another issue. Petitioners have themselves annexed yet another order dated 29.8.2008 passed in yet another writ application filed at least by Ruby 2 Kumari, which is C.W.J.C No. 10276 of 2008, Annexure-10, to the writ application. In the above case an innocuous Kind of submission was made that the petitioner had moved before the Divisional Commissioner and her representation should be decided within a reasonable time frame. It seems that the learned Single Judge bit the bait on the simplicity of the prayer and disposed of the writ application for a direction to dispose off the representation within a time frame, when a divisional Commissioner had no authority to exercise in the matter. Thereafter, petitioner raises a grievance that it is a case of discrimination because based on some order passed by the Divisional Commissioner Magadh Division One Harish Chandra Manjhi was re-instated on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra. Petitioners want to be treated in the same manner and this is the background under which Annexure 1, the order of the District Magistrate is being challenged again. In the above stated background the Court opines that this is not a bonafide litigation but wagering. The Court does not want to be a party to such proceeding and the writ is dismissed with 3 cost upon of the petitioners being imposed to the tune of Rs. 5000/- each to be payable by them within 4 weeks to the Legal Aid Services Authority of Patna High Court. Petitioners are warned and cautioned to be more careful in future. Prakash ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)