IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3914 of 2010 1. Bharat Sevashram Sangha, through its General Secretary Swami Bhujanende a society registered under the Society Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860) having its Head Office at 211 Rash Behari Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019, Branch Office, Swarajya Puri, Road, Gaya - 823001, Bihar. 2 Swami Punyananda S/O Swami Pranavanandji R/O Swarajya Puri Road, Gaya- 823001, Bihar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Union Of India, Through Railway Minister Govt. Of India, New Delhi, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 3. I.G. Registration New Secretariat Building, 2nd Floor, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Gaya, Bihar 6. The Station Superintendent Gaya, Railway Station, Gaya, Bihar 7. The Superintendent Of Police G.R.P. Gaya Railway Station, Gaya, Bihar 8. Puratan Bharat Seva Ashram, Through Its Secretary Murarpur, Near Kali Asthan, Gaya, Bihar 9. Adi Bharat Sevashram Sangha, Through Its Secretary Having Office At Rang Bahadur Road, Piparpati, Gaya, Bihar 10. Joy Guru Bharat Sevashram Sangh, Through Its Secretary Having Office At Chowk ( In Gate Of Roy Saheb ), Gaya, Bihar ----------- 03 04.07.2011 Heard Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 6 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, learned A.C. to G.A.1 for the State and its authorities. The writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 09.09.2009 passed in separate proceedings by the I.G. Registration, Bihar, Patna refusing to interfere with the functioning of the private respondent Nos. 8 to 10, who also are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as contained in Annexure 13 series. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made following submissions:- 2 (a) By using the name of Bharat Sevashram Sanga, the private respondents are trying to mislead the pilgrims. (b) The name of the private respondent Nos. 8 to 10 are in the teeth of the provisions of Section 12B(2) of the Act. (c) The activities of the private respondents are subversive of the objects of the petitioners society. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention aforesaid has relied upon an order of this Court placed at Annexure-11 of the writ proceedings. That was a case under the public interest litigation jurisdiction. The issues raised in the said writ petition by one Shri Shambhu Nath Datta giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 8272 of 2009 were identical to that having been raised in the present proceedings. This is substantiated from the order passed on 20.07.2009 in the said proceedings (Annexure-11). The writ petition was subsequently disposed of under the orders of the Court dated 02.09.2009 placed at Annexure-12 in the following terms. “Keeping in view the limited scope for interference by the judiciary in such matters, we do not think that any specific writ of mandamus can be issued. However, while disposing the writ application we feel it appropriate to observe that the respondent No.7-I.G., Registration should look into the matter relating to any matter pending before him and should take steps to dispose of such matters in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible only after complying with the principles of natural justice. Similarly, it is further observed that other authorities concerned including the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of Gaya District should make all sincere efforts to see that innocent pilgrims are not harassed by unscrupulous elements. 3 With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.” It is thereafter that the respondent I.G. Registration has, considered the grievance set out by the petitioner and passed the order dated 09.09.2009 placed at Annexure 13 series to the writ petition. In view of the clear findings and the directions of the Division Bench on the issue as recorded in the order dated 2.09.2009, this Court would refrain from granting any further indulgence to the petitioner in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)