Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.:— In the aforesaid writ petition the following order was passed by us on 19.05.2011:- "For the reasons to be recorded later on, the writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid costs". We set-forth the reasons, hereinafter. This matter was listed number of times and only on few occasions the counsel for the petitioners appeared but thereafter he did not appear and therefore, after notice to him, the matter was heard finally. Counsel for the respondents Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri and Sri Kaushik Chaterjee, advanced their arguments. This writ petition by Sri Shiv Asre Asthana, Sri Shiv Kumar Sharma and Sri Hridya Ram Verma Advocate, seeks the following reliefs:- "(i) Issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties for seizure of "Mool Gutka" of Ram Charit Manas edited and published by Jagat Guru Ram Bhadra Charya Viklang Vishwa Vidyalay, Chitra Koot, U.P. and Tulsi Peetha Dheeshwar Shri Tulsi Peeth Aamod Van Post Nayagaon, Chitra Koot Police Station Nayagaon Madhya Pradesh, Published through Nagri Press Allahabad with immediate effect in the interest of Justice and Public, and which is contained to the Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (ii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties 1 to 4 for taking appropriate actions against Jagat Guru Ram Bhadrya Charya, Kuladhipati Jagat Guru Ram Bhadra Charya Viklang Vishwa Vidyalay, Chitra Koot U.P. and Tulsi Peetha Dheeshwar Shri Tulsi Peeth Aamod Van Post Nayagaon, Chitra Koot Police Station Nayagaon Madhya Pradesh, and his other accomplices in order to punish him with as according to law. (iii)Issue any writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, as well as in the interest of Public". The petitioners apparently felt aggrieved by publication of "Mool Gutka" of Ram Charit Manas edited and published by Jagat Guru Ram Bhadra Charya, Chancellor, Viklang Vishwa Vidyalay, Chitra Koot, U.P. and Tulsi Peetha Dheeshwar Shri Tulsi Peeth Aamod Van Post Nayagaon, Chitra Koot Police Station Nayagaon Madhya Pradesh, Published through Nagri Press Allahabad which is spreading outrageous messages regarding the Hindu Religion. The petitioners claimed themselves to be the followers of an ancient Sanatan Dharma believing in Lord Vishnu his incarnations, Lord Shiva, Hanuman Ji and others. The petitioners claimed themselves to be the followers of an ancient Sanatan Dharma believing in Lord Vishnu his incarnations, Lord Shiva, Hanuman Ji and others. The publication of Ram Charit Manas "Mool Gutka" (hereinafter referred to as the "Mool Gutka" ) by Jagat Guru Ram Bhadra Charya had badly hurt the sentiments of the petitioners, it being fact that Maryada Purshottam is worshipped throughout the country as incarnation of God. The petitioners are also firm believer in great saints of India, who wrote Ram Charit Manas, when the country was under Mughal Emperor and Urdu and Persian alone were official language and Hindi was not allowed to develop. According to them Ram Charit Manas was written for common man also in the language which was simply understandable and spoken. Ram Charit Manas proved to be great savior and protector of Hindu Dharma. The petitioners had tremendous faith in Hindu mythology, rituals and rites. Maryada Purshottama Lord Rama is insisted in the heart and soul of the petitioners and the petitioners are consistently reading sacred Ram Charit Manas, which is being published by Geeta Press, and other undisputable press who have all published the original script written by Goswami Tulsi Das in Hidni, as was spoken and understood. The petitioners were shocked and stunned, to see and read Ram Charit Manas "Mool Gutka" by Jagat Guru Ram Bhadra Charya, published through Nagri Press situated at 91.186 Aalopi Bagh, Allahabad with the help of his other associates. To establish their locus to challenge the work done by Sri Jagat Guru Ram Bhadra Charya, the opposite party no. 5, the petitioner has pleaded that Ram Charit Manas written by Goswami Tulsi Das is the authentic version which is the only version of Ram Charit Manas and all other versions are false and wrong and that the book rejects the Ram Charit Manas of Goswami Tulsi Das which annoys the devotees of Lord Rama and hurt their sentiments. Elaborating the aforesaid grievance it has been urged in nut shell that the opposite party no. 5 in his editorial of "Mool Gutka" at various places has found grammatical faults in Ram Charit Manas written by Goswami Tulsidas and has also commented that Ayodhya Kaand which consists of out of three thousand verses (Pad) has atleast 2000 reading mistakes. Elaborating the aforesaid grievance it has been urged in nut shell that the opposite party no. 5 in his editorial of "Mool Gutka" at various places has found grammatical faults in Ram Charit Manas written by Goswami Tulsidas and has also commented that Ayodhya Kaand which consists of out of three thousand verses (Pad) has atleast 2000 reading mistakes. Further he has also suggested that the name of "Lanka Kaand" should be "Yudha Kaand" which stands corroborated by the books written by "Kodauram" and other authenticated books. The petitioners, thus, urged that finding fault in Ram Charit Manas as written by Goswami Tulsi Das is not only flabbergasting but it is deliberate denigration of the Hindu Dharma as well as Goswami Tulsi Das, who is revered like a God. Each and every word of Ram Charit Manas is worship able for the Hindus, and when Goswami Tulsidas has stated " Rachi Mahesh Nij Manas Rakha" i.e. Ram Charit Manas is the scripture of Bhagwan Shanker himself and when any scripture was written by Bhagwan Shanker himself, then editing of scripture written by Bhagwan Shanker by any human being is derogatory which hurts the sentiments of believers of Hindu Dharm. On legal plea for banning and seizing of aforesaid "Mool Gutka" and for taking action against opposite party no. 5 and rest of the persons associated with the same, it has been alleged by the petitioners that a learned person like opposite party no. 5 has tried to vanquish and defame the scripture of Bhagwan Shanker himself, of his self interest and for lucrative ambitions and cheap popularity and in doing so he has violated the barriers and provisions of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners sent a legal notice to various parties and requested them for unconditionally apologizing the intentional insult done by them but these notices were not replied. Further plea is that the aforesaid "Mool Gutka" written by opposite party no. 5 is shattering castism hatred and derogatory feeling amongst the Hindus and that the Union of India and the State Government and its authorities including the Chairman, Press Council of India, New Delhi have discriminated in not taking action against the followers and publishers of said "Mool Gutka", hence the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the reliefs aforesaid. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 5, apart from specifically denying the fact and the plea of the petitioners that editing of Ram Charit Manas written by Goswami Tulsidas, by opposite party no. 5 any way hurts the sentiments of followers and believers of Hindu Dharma or that it is otherwise derogatory to the scared scripture, it has also been specifically pleaded that the present writ petition, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed as retaliatory proceedings when the petitioners found themselves in trouble on criminal cases being lodged against them, the details of which, have been given in the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Jiya Rai, Advocate on being authorized by opposite party no. 5. Jagat Guru Swami Ram Bhadraya Charya is the Chancellor of "Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University Chitrakoot Dham, U.P. being a saint. He although is visually challenged, but has come forward with missionary zeal for providing opportunities to disabled youth, for which he is managing the University which is the only University of its kind not only in India but all over the world. It is the specific case of the opposite party no. 5 that the petitioners 1 and 2 have offended the standard of Journalist ethic and have committed professional misconduct by knowingly and deliberately publishing such vulgar articles at page no. 28 to 31 in "Prakhar Vichar" and page no. 19 to 25 in "Prakhar Astha" magazines in the month of March and April 2008 respectively. They have also published blasphemous and ridiculous articles containing insulting, derogatory remarks with obscene filthy words, bad in taste with ill motive in the aforesaid magazine against the opposite party no.5 and the petitioners had mischievously, malignantly and wontonly published said articles in the magazine with abusive remarks in order to black mail the saint and to earn cheap popularity. On publication of the aforesaid derogatory articles, a complaint was filed to the Press Council of India on 26.03.2008, the cognizance of which was taken and a case was registered as Misc. Case No. 14 of 2008. Since the petitioners did not stop even thereafter in the malicious campaign against the opposite party no. 5, disciples of the Swami Ji lodged FIR against the petitioners 1 and 2 at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow on 08.04.2008, the copy of which has been brought on record. Case No. 14 of 2008. Since the petitioners did not stop even thereafter in the malicious campaign against the opposite party no. 5, disciples of the Swami Ji lodged FIR against the petitioners 1 and 2 at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow on 08.04.2008, the copy of which has been brought on record. A charge sheet was filed in the aforesaid matter against the petitioners. The FIR was registered at Case Crime No. 263 of 2008, under Sections 124A/153A/295A/504/502B/34 I.P.C and the charge sheet was also filed making out a case under Section 153A/502B/504 I.P.C., on 19.12.2008. Before submission of the charge sheet on 19.12.2008, in fact a final report was submitted on 27/12/2008 by the Investigating Officer but the Circle Officer directed for re-investigation and thereupon the aforesaid charge sheet was submitted. The writ petition was filed on 05.09.2008 i.e. after the lodging of the FIRs therefore, the plea of the opposite party no. 5, is that the writ petition is not a bonafide petition filed by the petitioners but is a result of retaliation because of the FIR lodged against them in which the charge sheets have been submitted before the Court. The petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, only on the ground that it is not only malafide petition but the petitioners have concealed the aforesaid facts of their own conduct in the writ petition. The opposite party no. 5, in the counter affidavit, has also narrated the achievement of opposite party no. 5 and has also submitted that it is a totally frivolous writ petition on wrong footings. In fact the opposite party no. 5 studied and researched, Ram Charitra Manas and has put in his own conclusion, in the "Mool Gutka", which in no way offends the sentiments of the people in respect of Ram Charit Manas, written by Goswami Tulsidas, but in fact is only a piece of literature. Precisely the argument is that neither the petition nor "Mool Gutka" edited by opposite party no. 5 makes out any case for seizure of the aforesaid book nor any of the conditions required for the purpose under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, do exist. Neither any offence under Section 95 Cr.P.C, and/or 153-A, 295-A I.P.C. is made out nor attracted. According to the opposite party no. 5 makes out any case for seizure of the aforesaid book nor any of the conditions required for the purpose under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, do exist. Neither any offence under Section 95 Cr.P.C, and/or 153-A, 295-A I.P.C. is made out nor attracted. According to the opposite party no. 5 it is the work of research on holy scripture book where restraint cannot be put, in analyzing the same and putting his own views by the author. It is on record and not disputed by the petitioners that the State Government of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Act No. 32 of 2001 established the University known as Jagatguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University, Chitrakoot Dham, U.P. This University was established by the efforts made by opposite party no. 5 who himself is a visually challenged person. He with missionary zeal got the University established providing opportunities for disabled youth to have a place of learning. The State Government nominated the opposite party no. 5 as Chancellor of the University on 27th September 2001. Sri Ram Bhadracharya opposite party no. 5 lost his eyesight when he was only about 2 months of age but loosing vision did not deter him from pursuing the studies, which he continued. He studied at Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidhylya, Varanasi as a regular student and obtained degree of 'Vidya Varid' and 'Vachaspati'. In the year 1973 he secured highest marks in the examination of Shastri and secured Gold Medal in the year 1976. He passed his Acharya course in Sanskrit Grammar with the highest marks and also secured Gold Medal. He obtained Ph.D degree in the year 1983 from Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidhylya with subject of research "Adhyatm ramayne aparineey prayoganan vimarshah" and in the year 1995 he did his research work on "Parneeyashtadhyayah pratisutram Shabda kosh sameeksha and obtained degree of D. Lit. It is of great significance and of course hard thing for a visually handicapped person to study as a regular student and not only study as a regular student but also to attain distinction in various subjects. He was also awarded Ph.D degree and the degree of D.Lit. He had studied Vedas, Vedangas, Upnishad, Sanskrit Vyakarana and Dharm Shastras and has written 90 books on various subjects commentaries and Bhasya. He has deep knowledge of English Literature and other Indian languages with specialization in Sanskrit Language. He was also awarded Ph.D degree and the degree of D.Lit. He had studied Vedas, Vedangas, Upnishad, Sanskrit Vyakarana and Dharm Shastras and has written 90 books on various subjects commentaries and Bhasya. He has deep knowledge of English Literature and other Indian languages with specialization in Sanskrit Language. In the year 1987 he established "Sri Tulsipeeth" a Sidh Peeth at Chitrakoot and in the year 1988 he was celebrated with the title of Jagat Guru Ramanandachary at Kashi and in the year 1989 during Kumbh at Prayag, he was conferred the title of Jagat Guru Ramanandacharya by the Ramanandiya Seet unanimously and be became known as Sri Tulsipeethadeeshwar Jagatguru Ramananda Charya Swami Rambhadracharya. He has also written mahakavya named as "Arundhati" and "Ashtavakra" in Hindi and "Bhargav Radhveeyam" in Sanskrit. In the year 1988 he was conferred with the title of "Dharam Chakravorty" by the "International Society of World Religion Parliament" at Chicago which selects and confers such title every year from amongst the Dharmacharyas. In the year 2000, his introduction was published in a book "Whose who of intellectuals" published by the Cambridge University, London. Apart from that, in the year 2004, he was celebrated with "President Award", 'Maharishi Badrayan Puraskar', 'Shree Vani Alankar', 'Sahitya Academy Award' for his contribution in the world of Literature. The knowledge and wisdom of Sri Ram Bhadracharya the opposite party no. 5, thus, cannot be a matter of adjudication nor of comment but for addressing the challenge made by the petitioners, the work on Ram Charit Manas in the name of "Mool Gutka", one will have to see whether initial conditions for seizure and forfeiture on the ground that an offence punishable under Section 99-A of the old Code of Criminal Procedure and its corresponding Section 95 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')and or that of Section 153A IPC are present or not. Dealing with Section 99-A of the old Cr.P.C Special Bench of High Court in the Case of M.L. Gautam vs Emperior, Criminal May 12, 1936 held that the sole consideration would be whether the books contain any objectionable matter referred to in Section 99A. The scope of Section 153A was considered by Rankin and Mukherji, JJ, in Chakravarty v. Emperor A.I.R.1926 Cal. The scope of Section 153A was considered by Rankin and Mukherji, JJ, in Chakravarty v. Emperor A.I.R.1926 Cal. 1133 wherein it was laid down that section does not mean that any person who publishes words that have a tendency to promote class hatred can be convicted. The words are to be read as connoting a successful or unsuccessful attempt to promote feelings of enmity, and it must be the purpose or part of the purpose to promote such feelings; and if it is no part of the purpose, then the mere circumstance that there may be a tendency is not sufficient. The court after referring to the Meerut Conspiracy Case, S.H. Jhabwala v. Emperor, 1933 A.L.J. 799 wherein it was pointed out that the offending act consists not in spreading "opinions, ideas and education" but in the endeavour to put such opinions into practice; observed that the ingredients of Section 153A are promotion or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. In the opinion of the Court, the explanation makes it clear that there would be no offence in pointing out, without malicious intention and with an honest view to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. In their Lordship's opinion section 99A, of the old Cr.P.C. shows that even if there be no intention of the author to promote and no attempt on his part to promote feelings of enmity or hatred, forfeiture can be ordered if the matter does promote such feelings of enmity or hatred. To make the section applicable, two things are necessary; (1) promotion of feelings of enmity or hatred, (2) between different classes of the subjects. It seems to us that everything done which may have a remote bearing on promoting feelings of hatred or enmity would not be an offence. There should either be the intention to promote such feelings or such feelings should be promoted as a result of such publications. It seems to us that everything done which may have a remote bearing on promoting feelings of hatred or enmity would not be an offence. There should either be the intention to promote such feelings or such feelings should be promoted as a result of such publications. The Special Bench of Bombay High Court, in the case of M/s Varsha Publications Pvt. Ltd. And another vs State of Maharashtra and others, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1446, while dealing Sections 95 of present Cr.P.C. And Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, observed that it is true that sometimes in a given case even a truthful account may come within the mischief of Section 153-A of the Penal Code. But this will be too broad a proposition. Different considerations will prevail when we are to consider a scholarly article on history and religion based upon research with the help of a number of reference books. It will be very difficult for the State to contend that a narration of history would promote violence, enmity or hatred. If such a contention is accepted, a day will come when that part of history which is unpalatable to a particular religion will have to be kept in cold storage on the pretext that the publication of such history would constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A of the Penal Code. The scope of Section 153-A cannot be enlarged to such an extent with a view to thwart history. For obvious reasons, history and historical events cannot be allowed to be looked as a secret on a specious plea that if the history is made known to a person who is interested to know the history, there is likelihood of someone else being hurt. In the case of Lalai Singh Yadav and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1971 Crl. L.J. 1773, the Full Bench of this Court while considering the rational criticism of religious tenets couched in restrained language, found it to be no offence under Sections 153-A or under Section 295-A. In this case an application under Section 99-B, of the old Cr.P.C., asking for the quashing of the State Government's order dated 26.08.1970 (published in U.P. Gazette of 12.09.1970) forfeiting a book entitled "Samman ke liye dharm parivartan karen" came up for consideration. This book is a compilation in Hindi of speeches made by late Dr. This book is a compilation in Hindi of speeches made by late Dr. Ambedkar, exhorting the scheduled castes to throw off the shackles of caste tyranny by repudiating the Hindu religion and adopting Buddhism instead. The impugned notification cites 24 passages in the book, which are objected to because they "promote or attempt to promote on grounds of religion, caste or community disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religions, castes or communities and insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a class", thereby rendering the publication of the book punishable under Section 153-A and 295-A, I.P.C. The Full Bench in this case observed that passages 13 to 19 of the aforesaid book are objected to because they comment adversely on the Hindu Scriptures viz; the Vedas and the Bhagwadgita. Regarding the Vedas the author asserts that these hymns were 'composed by hundreds of people, who were undeveloped and uncultured'. But this passage has to be read in its context, which shows that it is only part of an argument aimed at refuting the orthodox view that the Vedas are of divine origin. In the same strain is another passage where the author has cited a certain Shabar Swami as saying that the persons who composed the Vedas were 'fools or madmen'. There is also a reference to the fact that the Vedas mention sexual intercourse with horse on the occasion of the ashwamedh (horse sacrifice) or ajamedh (goat sacrifice); but the author merely states that this subject has been discussed in the Vedas, not that the ritual in question has been approved or recommended, so there is nothing to take offence at here. The Court found that there is none of the passages complained of can be said to be punishable either under section 153-A or under Section 295-A of the Penal Code. The matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalai Singh Yadav (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 213. The forfeiture of book caption as "Ramayan" by the State was set aside by the High Court against which the State preferred an appeal. The matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalai Singh Yadav (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 213. The forfeiture of book caption as "Ramayan" by the State was set aside by the High Court against which the State preferred an appeal. The Supreme Court opined that the invocation of powers under section 99A of the old Cr.P.C. by State must be made in light of the fact of basic unity amidst diversity notwithstanding that India is a land of cultural contrarities, coexistence of many religions and anti-religions, rationalism and bigotry, primitive cults and materialist doctrines. The compulsions of history and geography and the assault of modern science on the retreating forces of medieval ways -- a mosaiclike tapestry of lovely and unlovely strands -- have made large and liberal tolerance of mutual criticism, even though expressed in intemperate diction, a necessity of life. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, Governments, must not act in hubris, but must weigh these hard facts of our society while putting into operation the harsh directives for forfeiture. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431 , the Supreme Court observed that Section 153-A covers a case where a person by "words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations" promotes or attempts to promote such feeling. Referring to its earlier decision in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214 wherein it was held that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 153-A; the Supreme Court opined that promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will "between different" religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract Section 153-A. So also the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate, (2010) 7 SCC 398 observed that no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to test the validity of a notification issued under Section 95 of the Cr.P.C. The Court proceeded to lay following legal aspects that could be kept in mind while examining the validity of such a notification: ix.The statement of the grounds of its opinion by the State Government is mandatory and a total absence thereof would vitiate the declaration of forfeiture. Therefore, the grounds of the Government's opinion must be stated in the notification issued under Section 95 of the Code and while testing the validity of the notification the Court has to confine the inquiry to the grounds so disclosed; (ii) Grounds of opinion must mean conclusion of facts on which the opinion is based. Grounds must necessarily be the import or the effect or the tendency of matters contained in the offending publication, either as a whole or in portions of it, as illustrated by passages which the Government may choose. A mere repetition of an opinion or reproduction of the section will not answer the requirement of a valid notification. However, at the same time, it is not necessary that the notification must bear a verbatim record of the forfeited material or give a detailed gist thereof; (iii) The validity of the order of forfeiture would depend on the merits of the grounds. The High Court would set aside the order of forfeiture if there are no grounds of opinion because if there are no grounds of opinion it cannot be satisfied that the grounds given by the Government justify the order. However, it is not the duty of the High Court to find for itself whether the book contained any such matter whatsoever; (iv) The State cannot extract stray sentences of portions of the book and come to a finding that the said book as a whole ought to be forfeited; (v) The intention of the author has to be gathered from the language, contents and import of the offending material. If the allegations made in the offending article are based on folklore, tradition or history, something in extenuation could perhaps be said for the author; (vi) If the writing is calculated to promote feelings of enmity or hatred, it is no defence to a charge under Section 153-A IPC that the writing contains a truthful account of past events or is otherwise supported by good authority. Adherence to the strict path of history is not by itself a complete defence to a charge under Section 153-A IPC; (vii) Section 95(1) of the Code postulates that the ingredients of the offences stated in the notification should "appear" to the Government to be present. It does not require that it should be "proved" to the satisfaction of the Government that all requirements of punishing sections, including mens rea, were fully established; (viii) The onus to dislodge and rebut the prima facie opinion of the Government that the offending publication comes within the ambit of the relevant offence, including its requirement of intent is on the applicant and such intention has to be gathered from the language, contents and import thereof; (ix) The effect of the words used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. The class of readers for whom the book is primarily meant would also be relevant for judging the probable consequences of the writing. (Emphasis supplied) A bare perusal of the offending portion of the "Mool Gutka" reveals that they are the scholarly work of opposite party no. 5 who has understood and explained the Ram Charit Manas as per his own derivations. Freedom of expression and speech cannot be marred by mere sentiments of any person or group of persons, unless commentary, criticism or analysis of the work which is under challenge falls within the mischief of Section 95 of Cr.P.C., 153A and/or 295A of I.P.C. In understanding Ram Charit Manas, if the opposite party no. Freedom of expression and speech cannot be marred by mere sentiments of any person or group of persons, unless commentary, criticism or analysis of the work which is under challenge falls within the mischief of Section 95 of Cr.P.C., 153A and/or 295A of I.P.C. In understanding Ram Charit Manas, if the opposite party no. 5 has found that the verses therein contained grammatical errors or errors of Matra, it may or may not be palatable or acceptable to the petitioners or like persons but it does not in any way promote enmity or hatred between two sets or group of persons nor is likely to promote such hatred and enmity. Ram Charit Manas is a scared book written and composed by Goswami Tulsidas who is revered by Hindus, "Mool Gutka" also respects Ram Charitra Manas. The opposite party no. 5 has shown all respect to the holy scripture and to Lord Rama and other Gods and Goddess and no where he has undermined their honour or their personalties. One can not forget that Ram Charit Manas depicts Lord Rama in human form with all perfection and therefore, if any, author or Saint describes his personality as a human being, it cannot offend the sentiments of any person. Nothing could be pointed out or could be brought to our notice in the aforesaid "Mool Gutka" which in any way makes out any offence under the aforesaid provision of Indian Penal Code. It is the own research work of opposite party no. 5 whose wisdom and knowledge has been largely acknowledged and therefore, this Court may not make an attempt to scrutinize the view expressed by him particularly when they do not make out any offence. It is also significant to mention here that the petitioners though have felt offended by the research work of opposite party no.5 but they have not urged that grammatical mistakes, pointed out by the author, in fact, are not grammatical mistakes nor have been able to satisfy the Court that simply by suggesting the title of "Lanka Kand" to be "Yudha Kand", how it will have an effect of promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of society. A plea was also taken by the opposite party no. A plea was also taken by the opposite party no. 5 that writ petition was not maintainable straight away since the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Government to take action under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Chandmal Chopra vs State of West Bengal and others, 1988 Crl. L.J. 739, wherein holy Quran was under discussion and the Court observed that the writ petition was not maintainable straight away. We do not intend to dismiss the writ petition on the aforesaid ground as we are satisfied that no case for forfeiture or seizure of "Mool Gutka" has been made out by the petitioners but we do find that the filing of the present petition apparently is a result of criminal proceedings initiated against some of the petitioners and therefore, the petition cannot be taken to be bonafide petition. That being so, the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. ____________