^ c^^^, £) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR. W. P. (C.l No. 2-9^ t?- /2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS ^ -. x ^^y ^•'^••\*?•'' X^:F<V>"' l.'-;"* '^"' ^"^ ^ <A-- 1 Bhagwat Das, Naga Sadhu Guru Shri Vishwanath Das, aged about 39 years, 2.^ Vasudeo Singh Thakur, S/o. Shri Manrakhan Singh Thakur, aged about 66 years, Both are R/o. Tiranga Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur (C.G.), VERSUS l.< State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, F'ublic ReUgious Trust 8s Endowment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), 2." Registrar, Public 85 Religious Trust, Raipur (C.G.), 3./ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Registrar, F'ublic Trust, Raipur (C.G-), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. //o II1GH COUKT OF CHHAITISGARH AT BILASPUR PETI'nONERS WRIT PETI'nON ?C) No. 2975 of2011 Bhag-A'at Das & Aiiother. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & CMhers. WMT PEl'ITION UM5ER AKI'ICLE 226 OF THE CONS'ITTUTION OF INDIA Slii-i J.K.Shastri. Advocate tbrthe petrtioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for thi State.'Tesoor-dents. n^' (Passed on 13th day of'June, 2011) The petitioners have. eariier prefen'ed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5475 of2009, seekingforthe following reliets: ('l' »"v T'hat, the petitioners rcspectfally prayed that this Hon'bie Court may Idndly be pleased to du'ect tlie respondents to comDlv the circular dated 22,8.1992. 2.8.1996, 4.3.2003 ahd 25.10.2005 (Annexure P/ll to P/14) and to eive efiect to tne concemed provisions of "M.P.(C,G.) Public Trust Act, 1951" conipiying thu wordmss ofthe Hon'bie SiiDreme Court. That, the petitioners farther prayed tSiat this Hon'ble Court mav kind'v 'be pleased to direct tiie respondents to record tSie possession cf deitv on ihs land and to orosecuie the responsible persons/authorities. That,' the petitioriers farther prayed that this Hon ole Court may kindly be pieased to direct the respondent No. 1 to enquire the complete matter and to recover the amouht misappropriated by the ' coa persons/autnorrtiss. fiv Th That, flie petitioners fui'ther prayed that tiiis Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the cost of the pctition in favour ofthe petrtioners. Aiw other relief, as it may deem fit and proper i-u the facts & circumstances of the case alocgwith cost of the The aforesaid pstition was disposed of with liberty resen'sd to the petitioners to file a. fi'esh applicatioii before the Registrar, Public Tmst under the Act. 1951 forredressal oftheir grievances raise.d in this petition. It was fanher directed that the Re.gistrar shall consider and decide tae same in accordauce witli the provssions of the Act, 1951. expeditiouslv. /',£1<^ /; 3. 'l'he mstant petition has been tiied reiteratmg the same prayer except the prayer ciause No. 10.4 seeking a direction to the respondents. ar.d not tlie Registrar, Re!igious aiid Public Tnist o'lly but to other respondeiits also to decide the representation submitted withm the stipulated time. 4. It is well settled prmcipie oflaw as a matter ofpublic policy that a petition fbr the same reliet; arising fi-om tiie same cause of action which has been considered and decided earlier caimot be agitated again by filmg a second petition. It appears that the prayer has been added verbatim without change of conuiia, fiill-stop, except clause 10.4, as aforestated wl-dch caniiot be done along'ivith otlier reliefTOiich had ah'eady been considei-ed earlier. 5. The Supreme Court, after having considered al! Ihe aspects oftlie matter. in Sfate of U.P. S- Anolher v. Labh Chcmd . held that a second writ petitioti after disnussal is not maintainable as a salutan/' rale ofpractice and proeedure. In State oi'Tamil Nachi & Others v. A'nala Awicri Higher Secondary Schoc'i , similar view was taken bv the Supreme Court and it was held that second writ petitioa fbr the same relief was abuse of proc&ss of coiirt which coiild iiot have been enteriained. Applying the well settled principles of3aw to the facts ofthe case on haiid, the writ petition is dismissed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 5000/- oayable to the Hisli Court Legal Aid Committee. ' _ ,, f= Satish K. Agnihotri Judge