O R D E R

% 06.11.2026

1. The petitioner, appearing in person, has filed the present petition seeking a direction to Respondent No.1/Registrar of Societies to decide his representation dated 16.10.2026. By the said representation, the petitioner has sought an inquiry into the affairs of Respondent No.2/Raj Vidya Kender (hereinafter referred to as ‘RVK’) and cancellation of its registration under Section 12D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable to Delhi.

2. The present petition is yet another attempt by the petitioner to re-agitate issues already decided by this Court.

3. It is evident from the Court record that the petitioner had earlier filed similar writ petitions concerning RVK, which were disposed of by a common judgement dated 02.02.2026. In the said judgement, this Court specifically declined to direct the Registrar to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of RVK or to cancel its registration. The appeal by the petitioner was dismissed on 09.04.2026. His subsequent petitions, W.P.(C) 18571/2025 and W.P.(C) 60/2026, were also dismissed by orders dated 20.04.2026 and 28.04.2026, respectively, and in the latter order, the Coordinate Bench reminded him of his duty to disclose the earlier proceedings.

4. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.04.2026 reads as under:

“1. The petitioner seems to be a chronic litigant. He has filed as many as five proceedings i.e. four writ petitions and one contempt petition. They were disposed vide judgment dated 02.02.2026. If paragraph 18 of the said judgment is considered in a right perspective, it would indicate that the relief prayed herein is overlapping. The petitioner then carried the order dated 02.02.2026 qua W.P.(C) 15987/2025 in LPA and the LPA Court vide order dated 09.04.2026 has dismissed the appeal.

2. The petitioner was duty-bound to disclose the earlier proceedings, which were carried out at his instance.

xx xxxx

4. The petitioner may have a genuine case, however, nothing precluded from disclosing the adjudication of the earlier writ petition at his instance. That too, when the reliefs are clearly overlapping. Under almost the same circumstances, this Court in W.P.(C) 18571/2025 has also dismissed another petition of this very petitioner vide order dated 20.04.2026.

5. Petition deserves to be dismissed on merits as the controversy stands adjudicated in earlier proceedings, as well as, on the ground of suppression of the material facts. The same is accordingly dismissed.

6. The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner should be saddled with cost, however, keeping in mind that the petitioner appears in person, the court refrained from imposing cost.”

5. Undeterred, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 16320/2026, seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider and decide the Petitioner's representation dated 24.10.2026 urgently and, before the proposed event on 7-8 November 2026, undertake such verification and take such preventive measures as may be warranted by law concerning the proposed 126th Hans Jayanti event at Respondent No.4's Shahurpur, Chhattarpur, Mehrauli premises, including relevant permissions or arrangements, public safety, crowd management and orderly handling of entry-related disputes;

b. Pending consideration of the above, direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to undertake an immediate assessment of any law-and-order risk arising from the announced entry conditions and to ensure that appropriate lawful arrangements are in place to prevent confrontation and maintain peace at the venue;

c. In the alternative, if this Hon'ble Court finds on the material and applicable law that a restraint is necessary, pass such limited interim order .as may be appropriate in relation to the event or any specified activity until the requisite verification is completed;

d. Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to place on record or communicate to the Petitioner a brief action-taken report concerning the