Judgment :- M.S. Liberhan, CJ. 1. The petitioner, through this Public Interest Litigation, prayed for issuance of a writ directing the Union of India and the Chief Election Commissioner to explore every possibility before taking a decision to dissolve the Lok Sahba and to go in for mid-term elections or for any other appropriate writ, Order or Direction. 2. The petitioner averred and claimed to be the Founder and General Secretary of a political Organisation, with an aim and object of spreading the preachings of Perunthalaivar (Great Leader) among the Indian masses it create an egalitarian society and bringing national integration and communal harmony. It is stated that in view of the Jain Commissions interim report placed before the Parliament, there has been hectic attempts by various political parties to impose mid-term election on the People. Various sweeping claims were made on the basis of ipse dixit. The mid-term election is said to involve huge public money which would be a national waste and violative of Art. 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution apart from that it is claimed that 40 to 60 Members of Parliament, crossing the party line, submitted a memorandum to the President of India not to dissolve the current Lok Sabha. 3. After going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, we are fully satisfied that this writ petition is one of the instances of abuse of process of Public Interest Litigation. The counsel refused to as also could not support the averments made, when we asked him to do so. Only inference is that the petition is not in public interest, but appears to be a publicity stunt litigation. It has been filed most irresponsibly. We fail to comprehend, when the petitioner claiming himself to be an advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar, did not even comprehend that the dissolution of the Lok Sabha is neither by the Union of India nor by the Chief Election Commissioner. On our repeated asking how the courts could issue a mandamus either to the respondents, who have no statutory duty to perform in connection with the relief sought, or to the President of India to discharge his functions in a particular fashion or particular manner or mode. There is neither any coherent averments nor arguments. It is a well-established form of the democracy that each institution is to discharge its own functions. There is neither any coherent averments nor arguments. It is a well-established form of the democracy that each institution is to discharge its own functions. It is only under certain circumstances, the actions may be subjected to judicial scrutiny. Herein, no action has been taken as yet, much less and capable of being subjected to judicial review. It is the prerogative of the President of India to dissolve the Lok Sabha in accordance with the Constitution of India. 4. It is high time that the Courts should come down heavily on such petitioners, who, for obvious oblique motives, want to utilise the solemn institution of the Courts for publicity or for media attraction. Judicial restraint demands to close it here, yet we cannot restrain ourselves in observing when we asked the counsel to assist the Court, the counsel was unable to even spell out a word except some ipsi dixit in Court. 5. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances stated above and the observations made by us and in order to save the precious judicial time and to deter such adventurists in Courts, we are of the view that it is a fit case which should be dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000 (One Thousand only). The State is directed to recover a sum of Rs.1000 from the petitioner in person and deposit the same in Free Legal Aid Board. With this direction, the Writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P. No.28472 of 1997 is dismissed.