← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12688/2025dismissed

Amvika Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar State Religious Trust Board

2026-01-31Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12688 of 2025 ====================================================== Amvika Prasad S/o Late Ramagya Prasad, Citizen of India, R/o Ward No. 14, Marvari Mohalla, P.O- Narkatiyaganj, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Chairman, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Vidya Pati Marg, Patna. 2.

Radha Bihari Ojha, the then Circle Officer, Narkatiyaganj through the Secretary Revenue Ministry Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Pt. Satya Narayan Shukla Son of Late Suryabali Shukla, Self Styled priest cum Manager Shri Satya Narayan, Bhagwan ka temple, Mukhiya Jee Chowk, Ward No. 15 Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran. 4.

The then Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran. 5.

Vishwanath Jhunjhunwala S/o Late Ishwari Prasad Jhunjhunwala, R/o Near Power House, Lal Bazar, Bettiah, West Champaran. 6.

District Magistrate Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amvika Prasad (In Person) For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Saket Tiwary Mr. Animesh Gupta For the BSRTB :

Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Saurabh Suman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2026

1. Heard the petitioner, in person, and learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondent no. 1-the Chairman, Bihar Stater Religious Trust Board, to take proper action against the respondent nos. 3 and 5, for their unauthorized and

2/4 misleading acts in violation of the status quo order passed by the respondent no. 1 and also for negligence of their duties.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed CWJC No. 14444 of 2022, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 1 to take control of Shri Satyanarayan Bhagwan Temple and to renovate the temple after forming a committee of competent officers inasmuch as the respondent no. 3 is misusing the funds and also shifting the temple to one-fourth of the total area and using the rest three-fourth area for commercial purposes.

4. The Division Bench of this Court, in CWJC No. 14444 of 2025, disposed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 1 by filing a representation for redressal of his grievance and the authorities were directed to consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of the representation.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises of Shri Satyanarayan

3/4 Bhagwan Temple, Narkatiaganj, and respondent nos. 3 and 5 are the trustees of the said temple. The petitioner neither submits before this Court that he has filed any representation before the respondent no. 1 pursuant to the order passed by the Division bench of this Court in CWJC NO. 14444 of 2022 nor there is any document available on record, which could go to show that such representation has been filed by him.

6. Instead of filing representation before the respondent no. 1, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 8861 of 2025. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on the prayer made by the petitioner to withdraw the same to avail appropriate remedy, vide order, dated 07.07.2025, dismissed the writ application as withdrawn.

7. Again, the petitioner without approaching the Bihar State Religious Trust Board for redressal of his grievances, filed the present writ application, alleging same set of allegation.

8. Considering the aforesaid, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is abusing the process of Court by repeatedly filing writ petition one after another for the same set of allegation.

4/4

9. This writ application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √