ORDER : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. 1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed below Exh.1 in Application No. 11 of 2004 by the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, on the ground stated in the petition. 2. Heard learned advocate Mrs. Nisha Parikh for the petitioner. 3. It is required to be noted that the matter is filed in 2016. Even without issuance of notice, the matter is kept till today and therefore, on the last occasion the Court was required to pass an order dated 01.09.2017 and insisted for hearing. 4. Thereafter, learned advocate Mrs. Parikh has remained present and made much emphasis that the petitioner is a member of the Trust and though it has been directed pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Division Bench, the issues have been considered. However, the submissions as well as the whole litigation is frivolous and it is not required any consideration in exercise of discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has been pursuing this matter. Again, earlier the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 3611 of 2002 and the High Court (Coram: R.M. Doshit, J.) vide order dated 20.03.2003 passed the order with regard to the same issue and the allegation about the mismanagement of the Trust. The matter was moved by way of an appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 823 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No. 3611 of 2002. The Hon'ble Division Bench (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri & A.G. Uraizee, JJ.) vide order dated 15.01.2014 has passed an order disposing of the said LPA and observed in paragraph No. 3 that the grievance voiced in this appeal it has been observed that the appellant could approach the authority i.e. Assistant Charity Commissioner or Joint Charity Commissioner. The Hon'ble Division Bench (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri & A.G. Uraizee, JJ.) vide order dated 15.01.2014 has passed an order disposing of the said LPA and observed in paragraph No. 3 that the grievance voiced in this appeal it has been observed that the appellant could approach the authority i.e. Assistant Charity Commissioner or Joint Charity Commissioner. Thereafter it appears that the applicant had moved the application at Annexure-A dated 27.02.2014 The Charity Commissioner passed an impugned order dated 18.11.2015 and the order is clear when it has referred to the aspect of election and the scope of Section 41(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act and also specific reference is made to the order passed by the High Court in LPA, it has been noted that earlier also the same reliefs were prayed before the Charity Commissioner and order was passed. 5. Therefore, the Charity Commissioner passed an order it cannot be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction, which would call for any exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the same issues cannot be permitted to be agitated, time and again, by making application at a different time or a different stage. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed summarily and accordingly, stands dismissed.