K.L. Jasmatiya, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ashok Chhangani and M.S. Singh, for Respondents Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person by writing a letter to this Court alleging that the respondent- M/s. LMJ Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Dealer)-- a proprietary concern, has made bogus bookings of Maruti Cars and earned huge un-accounted money. The sole relief sought by him is that the investi-gation may be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. (2). This Court has treated the said letter as a writ petition and the notices were issued to the authorities concerned as well as to the said respondent-Dealer. The petitioners case is that in respect of the same bogus bookings, one Shri Rajesh Arya, an IPS Officer, Addl. Superintendent of Police, City Circle Officer (West), Jodh-pur; has lodged an FIR, No. 128/97, in Police Station, Pratap Nagar, however, the Police being in collusion with the said respondent-Dealer, is not conducting the investigation fairly. (3). The respondent Dealer has categorically stated in his reply that the present petition has been filed for black-mailing him and only with sole motive of extortingmoney. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner by filing rejoinder affidavit. (4). The Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur has filed a detailed reply wherein it has been stated that after the FIR was lodged by Mr. Rajesh Arya, the matter is being investigated and the same is still on progress. It has specifically been stated that a large number of persons had been examined and so far as present petitioneris concerned, he has neither supplied any particulars in respect of allegations with regard to bogus booking in fictitious names, artificial shortage of vehicles and black marketing nor he pointed out as to how the investigation is not being done fairly. It is not borne out from any document as to what extent the investigating officer is not conducting the investigation properly and in accordance with law. (5). On 24th August, 1997, the petitioner has sent a telegram to the Court, to the effect that he wants to withdraw the instant petition. Doubting the genuineness of the said telegram, a notice was sent to the petitioner by this Court by order dated 25.9.1997 and he was directed to remain present in the Court on this date. Mr. Mahesh Sharma and Mr. Doubting the genuineness of the said telegram, a notice was sent to the petitioner by this Court by order dated 25.9.1997 and he was directed to remain present in the Court on this date. Mr. Mahesh Sharma and Mr. Narendra Jai Kishan had also written letters making sameallegations against the said Dealer. They were also directed to remain present in the Court on 4th November, 1997. (6). In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the present petitioner Mr. Rathi appeared in the Court but the other two persons Mr. Mahesh Sharma and Mr. Narendra Jai Kishan did not turn up in spite of service/notice. (7). Mr. M.R. Singhvi has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner though earlier this court appointed Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned Advocate of this Court as Amicus Curiae in this case. Mr. Singhvi submitted that the petitioner is willing to prosecute the matter further. However, Mr. M.R. Singhvi has fairly conceded that the present petitioner is neither in a position to state as to in what manner the investigation is not being conducted fairly or in accordance with law, nor he has been defrauded by the respondent Dealer, as no bogus booking has been made inhis name. He filed the instant petition on the basis of a news published in the newspaper, however, he has not verified the correctness/genuineness or authenticity of the said news. (8). The petitioner has admitted that he had sent the telegram to the Court making request for withdrawal of the present writ petition. However, it has beensubmitted on his behalf that petitioner is willing to prosecute the petition. (9). The circumstances; petition has not been defrauded and has got no legal injury by the deeds/misdeeds of the respondent Dealer, filing P.I.L. by him only on the basis of news papers report, and that too without verifying its correctness and without substantiating his allegations of not conducting the investigation fairly, sen-ding telegram for withdrawal of the petition and subsequently insisting for pressing the petition; make the bonafides of the petitioner very much doubtful. The petitioner could not lay any factual foundation for any of the allegations made in the petition nor could he say that he knew any person in whose name bogus booking has been done and who had approached the investigating officer but his statementwas not recorded by the said officer. The petitioner could not lay any factual foundation for any of the allegations made in the petition nor could he say that he knew any person in whose name bogus booking has been done and who had approached the investigating officer but his statementwas not recorded by the said officer. Filing the P.I.L. in such an irresponsible manner suggests that petitioner cannot be a public spirited person. (10). Public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation. The purpose of P.I.L. is to promote the public interest which mandates that violation of legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons, poor, down-trodden, ig-norant, socially or economically disadvantaged should not go unredressed. The Court can take cognizance in P.I.L. when there are complaints which shocks the judicial conscience. P.I.L. is pro bono publico and should not smack of any ulterior motive and no person has a right to achieve any ulterior purpose through such litigations. (11). In S.P. Gupta and others vs. Union of India (1), the Honble Apex Court has warned by saying that the Court must be careful that the members of the public who approach the court are acting bonafide and not in personal garb of private profit or political motivation or other oblique considerations. ``The Court must not allow its process to be abused. Similar view has been taken in Kazi Landup Dorjivs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others (2). (12). In Veena Sethi vs. State of Bihar (3), the Apex Court has observed that the role of law requires to be played for the poor and ignorant who constitute a large bulk of humanity in this country and the Court must uphold the basic human rights of weaker sections of the society. (13). (12). In Veena Sethi vs. State of Bihar (3), the Apex Court has observed that the role of law requires to be played for the poor and ignorant who constitute a large bulk of humanity in this country and the Court must uphold the basic human rights of weaker sections of the society. (13). In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parent of Student (4), the Honble Supreme Court held as under: ``Where the Court finds, on being moved by an aggrieved party or by any public spirited individual or social action group, that the executive is remiss in discharging its obligation under the Constitution or the law, so that the poor and the under-privileged continued to be subjected to exploitation and injustice or are deprived of their social and economic entitlements or that social and economic entitlements or that social legislation enacted for their benefit is not being implemented thus depriving of their rights and benefits conferred upon them, the Courts certainly can be must intervene and compel the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations and ensure that the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community are no longer subjected to exploitation or injustice and they are able to realise their social and economical rights. (14). In Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal (5), the Apex Court observed that the Court should not take cognizance in such matters merely because of its attractive name. The petitioner must inspire the confidence of the Court and must be above suspicion. (15). In Ram Saran Ayotan Parasi vs. Union of India (6), the Honble SupremeCourt observed that the P.I.L. is for making basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social, economic and political justice. (16). In Gyani Davender Singh Sant Sepoy Sikh vs. Union of India and Others (7), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, while entertaining aP.I.L. must indicate how the public interest was involved in the case. (17). In R.K. Jain vs. Union of India and Others (8), the Apex Court observed that it was for the aggrieved person to assail the illegality of the offending action and no third party has a locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. (17). In R.K. Jain vs. Union of India and Others (8), the Apex Court observed that it was for the aggrieved person to assail the illegality of the offending action and no third party has a locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Similarly, in Mohammad Anis vs. Union of India and Others (9), the ApexCourt has held that a case should not be entertained unless the petitioner points out that his legal rights have been infringed. (18). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmad and Others (10), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under: ``If a person wants a relief in a Court independent of a statutory remedy, he must show that he is injured or subjected to or threatened with a legal wrong. The Courts can interfere only where legal rights are involved. In fact legal wrong requires judicially enforceable right and `the touchstone to justiciability is injury to a legally protected right. A nominal or a highly speculative adverse effect on the interest of a person or right of a person is sufficient to give him the `standing to sue. Again, the `adverse effect and the requisite for `standing to sue must be an illegal effect.... Such persons are merely busy body of middlesome interloper... They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of probono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the ........ ........ judicial process ........ from improper motives ........ The High Court should do well to reject the application of all such busybodies at the threshold. (19). In S.P. Anand vs. S.D. Devegowda and Others (11), Honble Supreme Court has observed that - ``no person has a right to waiver of the locus standi rule and court should permit it only when it is satified that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person, who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations, so also the courtmust be careful to ensure that the process of the court is not sought to be abused..... (20). (20). Thus, in view of the above, the ratio of all these judgments is as under: (i) There must be a public injury and public wrong caused by wrongful or ultravires acts or omission of the State or a public authority. (ii) It is for the enforcement of basic human rights of weaker sections of the community who are down-trodden, ignorant, illiterates nd whose fundamental rights and statutory rights have been violated. In fact, it is for compelling the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations. (iii) It must not be frivolous litigation by persons having vested interests. (21). This is the solemn duty of the court to protect the society from the so called protectors of the society and, thus, while entertaining P.I.L., the court should be conscious and try to ascertain the bonafides of the petitioner and further, find out whether he is really a public spirited person or he has approached the court to settle his ulterior score through the legal process. (22). If the instant case is examined in the light of judgments referred to hereinabove, the following circumstances reveal that petitioner cannot claim to bea public spirited person: (a) Petitioner has not been defrauded by the alleged deeds of the respondent Dealer. (b) The petitioner filed the P.I.L. by writing a letter, on the basis of newspaper report, without verifying its correctness/authenticity. (c) The petitioner sent the letter by speed post from Jodhpur itself, though there was no such urgency. (d) The petitioner could not lay any factual foundation to substantiate the allegations made in the petition. (e) Once the FIR has been lodged by the competent Police Officer, who is posted as an Additional Superintendent of Police in Jodhpur city itself, there was no reason to apprehend that the investigation will not be conducted fairly and particularly, when the concerned Police Officer has not made any grievance so far. (f) The petitioner did not file rejoinder affidavit denying the allega- tions made by the respondent Dealer that the instant petition has been filed for black-mailing him and to extort money from him. (f) The petitioner did not file rejoinder affidavit denying the allega- tions made by the respondent Dealer that the instant petition has been filed for black-mailing him and to extort money from him. (g) The allegations made by the respondent Dealer in his reply that the petitioner has filed the petition at the behest of one Shri Narendra Jai Kishan and said Shri Narendra Jai Kishan has also written similar letter to the Court and in spite of service of the order of this Court dated 25.9.1997, said Shri Jai Kishan did not appear in the Court, though he sent some documents directly to the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, stood unrebutted. (h) The petitioner sent a telegram to withdraw the present petition and today he insisted to press this petition. It appears that the petitioner is playing hide and seek with the Court alongwith other persons like Shri Narendra Jai Kishan. (23). It is not a case where petitioner has approached this Court for the welfare of the down-trodden ``little Indians, or to save the ignorants from their exploita-tion. It has been filed without any sense of responsibility and even today petitioner is not able to substantiate his allegations. The conduct of the petitioner is, thus reprehensible. At one stage, he sent a telegram for withdrawal of the petition, which could not be permtted in view of the judgment of Honble Apex Court in S.P. Anands case (supra), wherein it has been observed that in P.I.L. cases, the petitio-ner is not entitled to withdraw his petition at his sweetwill unless the Court sees reasons to permit withdrawal. The Court further observed as under: ``In granting the permission the Court would be guided by the considerations of public interest and would ensure that it does not result in abuse of the process of law. The Court must guard against the possi- bilities of such litigants settling the matters out of the court to their advantage and then seeking withdrawal of the case. There are umpteen ways in which the process of law can be abused and Court must be aware of the same before permitting withdrawal of a public interest petition. (24). The Court must guard against the possi- bilities of such litigants settling the matters out of the court to their advantage and then seeking withdrawal of the case. There are umpteen ways in which the process of law can be abused and Court must be aware of the same before permitting withdrawal of a public interest petition. (24). It is settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objectives. (vide Ramjas Foundation and Others vs. Union of India and Others (12); G. Narainswami Reddy vs. Government of Karnataka and Others (13) and K.R. Sriniwas vs. R.M. Premchand and Others (14)). The courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent the law from crafty evasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where nece-ssary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (vide State of Maharashtra & Others vs. Prabhu (15) and Andhra State Financial Corporation vs. Gar Re : Rolling Mills (16)). (25). In Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Prasaran and Others (17), the Apex Court has observed as under: ``No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (26). The only prayer made in the instant case is that this Court must issue dir-ections to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct the investigation in the alleged scam of bogus booking by the said Dealer. In All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (regd.) vs. Union of India and Others (18), the Honble Apex Court has held that if the Police does not take action on the information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the complainant has a right beforethe Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. However, the complainant cannot approach the High Court by filing a petition and seeking direction to conduct the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (27). However, the complainant cannot approach the High Court by filing a petition and seeking direction to conduct the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (27). Thus, in view of the above, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought by petitioner, however, the petition is disposed off finally with the following orders: 1. The investigating agency is directed to complete the investigation in respect of the FIR No. 128/97, lodged by Mr. Rajesh Arya, expeditiously and proceed strictly in accordance with law. However, the Superintendent of Police concerned is directed to supervise the investigation and obtain progress report periodically; 2. If any person has been defrauded by the respondent Dealer by making bogus booking in his name and he is aggrieved by the said act, he would be at liberty to contact the investigating agency or to file a fresh FIR or a criminal complaint before the competent criminal court regarding the same and if any such person comes forward and lodges an FIR or files a criminal complaint, the authority concerned will proceed in accordance with law; 3. If any person who is in possession of any incriminating material in respect of alleged bogus booking, he is at liberty to approach the investigating agency and submit the same and if any person does so, the investigating agency is directed to record his statements and proceed with the case in accordance with law; 4. As the petitioner has filed the instant petition with utmost irresponsibility and in reprehensible manner, he is liable to pay the cost, which is quantified to the tune of Rs. 3000/-. Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Rathi is directed to deposit the said amount of cost within 4 weeks from today failing which the said amount shall be recovered by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur treating it to be a decree of that court and deposit the same in the account of Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. A copy of this order be sent to learned District Judge, Jodh- pur for compliance; and 5. As the other two persons, namely, Shri Mahesh Sharma and Shri Narendra Jai Kishan, who had written letters to this Court, have not turned up inspite of notice, their cases are rejected without being registered.