JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be a political worker. He has filed this petition as Probono Publico seeking issuance of appropriate writs to cancel the sanction dated 6.4.1994 (Annexure E), accorded by respondent No. 2 (Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore) for construction of shops on ground floor (Bhutal) and structure for residential purpose over (uparatal) it, to demolish sanction, if any, by respondent No. 3 (Indore Municipal Corporation) and to remove the construction made so far. On 8.5.1995, this Court directed stoppage of further construction. Respondents have filed the reply in opposition. It is categorically contended that - a) Permission is of 6.4.94 and construction to the knowledge of the petitioner, commenced in June 94. As such, the petition filed on 3.2.1995 is barred by inexcusable laches. b) Construction is not violative of master plan or sanctioned map. c) Petitioner has no 'locus standi' in the matter. (d) The insistence to construct 'shops' in accord with scheme No. 54 for Mechanic Nagar Extension evidently shows that dominant purpose is adhered to. (e) Petitioner filed petition mala fide to blackmail respondent No. 5 and 6 and caused loss through interim order as noted above and is thus liable to be saddled with liability of proper compensation to these respondents. (f) Annexure R/1 filed by respondents No. 2 and 4 is enough to incinerate the petition. Use of land as commercial is indicated. Residential dwelling is permissible. The counsel for the respondent No. 3 stated in his oral submission that residential dwelling is permitted only beyond first floor and as such there is no illegality or invalidity in sanction. Respondents submit that they shall adhere to guide lines Annexure R/1. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the view that grievance of the petitioner is not well founded. As to public interest litigation, it is apt to make a reference to AIR 1984 SC 802 ; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors. "It is clear on the plain language of Clause (1) of Article 32 that whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right, anyone can move the Supreme Court for enforcement of such fundamental right. "It is clear on the plain language of Clause (1) of Article 32 that whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right, anyone can move the Supreme Court for enforcement of such fundamental right. Of course, the Court would not, in exercise of its discretion, intervene at the instance of a meddlesome inter-loper or busy body and would ordinarily insist that only a person whose fundamental right is violated should be allowed to activise the Court. Where, however, the fundamental right of a person or class of persons is violated but who cannot have resort to the Court on account of their poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position the Court can and must allow any member of the public acting bona fide to espouse the cause of such person or class of persons and move the Court for judicial enforcement of the fundamental right of such person or class of persons." In the aforesaid decision, it is also held that in such circumstances, the petition can be moved for reliefs under Art. 32 and certiorari also under Art. 226. No person has approached this Court with the case that he is in any way affected by the permission or sanction or actual construction. We do not find that public interest is in peril. In view of stand taken by the respondents, we are satisfied, particularly on the statement of the counsel for the respondent No. 3, that this petition is devoid of substance and should, therefore, suffer fate of dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition and vacate interim order passed by this Court on 8.5.1995. In the interests of justice, we also direct the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 500/- as costs to the respondents No. 5 and 6.