JUDGMENT The petitioner, a resident of Indore, has filed this petition as public interest litigation under Art. 226 read with Art. 14, 21, 19, 25, 301, 302, 303 and 304 of the Constitution of India. The grievance is about the sudden cancellation of several trains on 27.10.90 on the linchpin of executive instructions. It is contended that the pernicious practice of sudden cancellation of trains is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India and exposes the public to lose their right to move freely. The reliefs sought are, however, limited to a declaration that cancellation of trains, particularly Malva Express between Indore and New Delhi on a particular date is unconstitutional and abuse of powers constituting malice in law. The petitioner during the couse of his lengthy arguments, placing reliance on certain decisions, which in peculiar facts, we need not refer, branded the case on hand as one of great Public importance. It is contended that as n result of the nature of case this Court is bound to admit the petition in the interest of justice. The other side, however, explained that cancellation of trains took place at :) time when Ayodhyn issue had gained momentum and preventive measures had become necessary to protect persons and property. Now is the turn to revert briefly to the basis of the grievance, which gave birth to this litigation, at a time when the long queue of cases awaits answers. It is averred in the petition that the Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Indore, on enquiry, disclosed that "No Malva Train shall be leaving for New Delhi Today." We feel uneasy to notice that a day's dislocation, seemingly beyond control, provoked the petitioner to rush to this Court and then to persist in the matter right up to this day. It is indeed inutile to huddle futile petitions in such an irremissible manner. We find that the action of cancellation is ex-facie fault-free and furnishes no good cause to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. Law must be prepared to lapidate undeserving causes. Monosyllabic 'no' is then the answer to the prayer contained in the petition. We thus decline admission but deem it proper to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. We find that the action of cancellation is ex-facie fault-free and furnishes no good cause to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction. Law must be prepared to lapidate undeserving causes. Monosyllabic 'no' is then the answer to the prayer contained in the petition. We thus decline admission but deem it proper to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- in public interests as cost to the State Government (which is required to meet the expenditure) because this Court was required to devote considerable time in handling and hearing the matter. In the result, this petition, being acarpous, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with costs quantified as above.