1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 2231 OF 2004 Sharad Sonu Wani .... Petitioner. vs. Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jan-Andolan Nyas & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. S.V. Pitre for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Pradhan for Respondent No.4. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP., for Respondent Nos. 9 to 11. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2008. 2 P.C. . Heard. 2. This Public Interest Litigation is filed by one Mr. Sharad Sonu Wani a practicing lawyer who also claims to be ex-MLC and in active social service. He has filed this petition impugning the decision of the Charity Commissioner and Registrar of Societies who registered respondent no. 1 under the Societies Registration Act vide Registration no. MAH/144641/Ahmednagar, 3. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be that such societies cannot be registered by the Charity Commissioner under the Societies Registration Act particularly when the society is named as Bhrashtachar Virodhi Jana- Andolan Nyas and its purpose and object is to fight corruption in the society. 4. In our view, there is no public interest involved in this petition. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of the respondent no. 1 society by the Charity 3 Commissioner in his capacity as Registrar of Societies, it was open for the petitioner to have challenged the order of the Charity Commissioner who refused to deregister the society on his application. 5. Before, we took up the matter for admission, we had put the petitioner on terms that this Court would take up the petition for hearing on admission on the condition that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. 6. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that tendency of instituting litigation in Court under the caption of “Public Interest Litigation” has in recent times been abused resulting in waste of court's time. In order to further understand as to whether the subject matter of the petition really espouses any cause in larger public interest, we have also referred to the compilation of guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter and we find that the petition does not fall in any of the categories. 4 7. We further conveyed this to the learned counsel for the petitioner and gave him an option to even withdraw the petition and seek refund of the sum of Rs. 1 lakh. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has learnt that the petitioner has suffered paralytic attack and the petitioner is not interested in withdrawing the petition and would like to invite the order of this Court. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. The sum of Rs. 1 lakh which has been deposited in this Court as a pre- condition is forfeited. The Registrar – Judicial is directed to credit this amount in the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee so that the moneys can be used for providing legal aid and services to the poor and needy. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) 5