IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3710 of 2010 Arjun Prasad Srivastava s/o Shambhu Sharan Prasad Srivastava, r/o village – Amwa, P.S. Kotwa at present mohalla – Bhawanipur Jirat Roin Club Road, P.S. Chhatauni, District – East Champaran ………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Registration, Bihar, Patna 2. The Inspector General of Registration, Bihar 3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran at Motihari 4. The District Sub-Registrar, District Sub Registration Office, East Champaran, Motihari 5. The Sub Registrar, Araraj, P.S. Govindganj, East Champaran, Motihari 6. The Sub-Registrar, Chaka P.O. & P.S. –Dhaka, East Champaran 7. The Sub-Registrar, Kesariya, P.O. & P.S. Kesariya, East Champaran 8. The Sub-Registrar, Chakiya, P.O. & P.S. Chakiya, East Champaran 9. The Registrar, Chhaurandano, P.O. & P.S. Chhaurandano, District – East Champaran ……. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Virendra Kuar, Advocate For the State: Mr. P.K. Singh, SC II --- 2 3/3/2010 In this public interest litigation the challenge is to the fixation of minimum market value of the land situated in Sub- Registry Area of District East Champaran under the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instrument) Rules, 1995. In our considered opinion, the basic challenge relates to the provisions made under the Rules and fixation thereof. It is 2 also worth noting that the petitioner had earlier come to this court in CWJC. No.3899 of 2009 which stood dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 31.3.2009. On a perusal of the petition in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the cause of action is the same. The only change that has been put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has submitted a representation to the competent authority of the State Government. We must say that we are perplexed at the conduct of the petitioner inasmuch as he can conceived to change the cause of action by submitting a representation. Possibly, he has nurtured the idea ‘the best thought is a thoughtless thought’ but the said conception of thoughtless thought has some room in the realm of philosophy but has no entry in the field of law. Ordinarily, we would have imposed exemplary costs but regard being had to the totality of the circumstances, we have refrained from doing so. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 3