ORDER Mathur, C.J. – 1. This is a public interest litigation whereby the petitioner has sought for a issue of mandamus directing the Special Police Establishment. M.P., to register a criminal case against the respondent No.3 Dr. Vijay Kumar, IPS, and to investigate into the offences as mentioned in the writ petition. It is also prayed that the respondent No.3 be removed from Police Establishment, M.P. It is also prayed that the respondent No. 4 State be directed to get investigations conducted by the Central Buteau of Investigation/Income Tax Department into the assests and properties of the Police Officers posted in the Special Police Establishment. 2. It is most unfortunate that the petitioner, who himself was Chief Secretary of this State, has resorted to this public interest litigation levelling allegations against the respondent No.3, who is working as a Superintendent of Police (Special Police Establishment) Lokayukt Karayalaya. Bhopal. The Lokayukt Organisation is headed by the Hon'ble Shri Faizanuudiri, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. The respondent No. 3 is working as an officer there. It is alleged that certain allegations were made against the respondent No. 3 and an enquiry was initiated against him some time back. It is alleged that since the respondent No.3, being guilty of omission and commission has been charge-sheeted he should not be allowed to continue in the Special Police Establishment of M.P. ('SPE' in short). 3. This petition, prima facie, does not appear to be bona fide. After issue of notice, a wide publicity by this petitioner was made in various national presses levelling allegations against the Lokayukt institution and news item were published in the Indian Express, Times of India and various news papers with bold head lines which we do not intend to reproduce in this order. But we express our great concern in the manner the publicity has been given to this petition. This kind of publicity is highly undesirable and speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner himself. The press should have taken a proper care not to have given a publicity before the matter was adjudicated. Time and again, this Court as well as the Apex Court have observed that this kind of media trial should not be allowed to be permitted. The press should have taken a proper care not to have given a publicity before the matter was adjudicated. Time and again, this Court as well as the Apex Court have observed that this kind of media trial should not be allowed to be permitted. Because of issuance of process by the Court, the media got a news item and published it in a different manner when the matter awaited to be decided in this Court. This kind of publicity by the press against the institution and the respondents in this manner was highly undesirable. In this context we may refer to the decision rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997)8 SCC 386 , wherein it has been laid down as under:-- "There is a procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A Judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be guided strictly by rules of law." We warn that in future the Press should be more cautious while publishing any matter relating to litigations pending before this Court. It is understandable the decision has been given and that has been published by the Press. But before the matter is adjudicated, only because process has been issued, there was no reason to highlight the allegations in bold print which was totally undesirable as it unnecessarily tarnishes the image of the esteemed institution. We are of the view that before the matter could be adjudicated the institution of Lokayukt stood condemned in the press wide publicity was given 10 the contents of the petition. This, in our opinion, is not an objective press reporting, and the press should be more vigilent/careful while reporting the proceedings of the Court. It is to be kept in mind that institution of Lokayukt is headed by not less than a retired Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court. 4. Now, coming to the merit of the case, counter allegations have been made against the petitioner himself. He is an old man of 72 years and was formerly the Chief Secretary of the State. 4. Now, coming to the merit of the case, counter allegations have been made against the petitioner himself. He is an old man of 72 years and was formerly the Chief Secretary of the State. We need not comment on him specially when Shri Shroti, and Shri R.N. Shigh, learned counsel for the respondents have considered in not playing up the back ground of the petitioner and his service career. In view of the submissions, we need not highlight that what kind of officer, the petitioner, had been. But we cannot resist from saying that the petitioner has crossed all the limits in making wide and frivolous allegations in the petition. In fact, the petitioner has no right to maintain this public interest litigation because he himself filed a complaint before the Lokayukt with regard to a piece of plot sold by him. When the purchaser started construction, he made complaints to the Lokayukt and it was investigated by the Lokayukt and the respondent No.3. The respondent No. 3 after investigation, found that no case was made out and accordingly. He filed the final report, which was ultimately accepted. The petitioner has a personal grievance because his complaint has not found favour. The said grievance has given rise to this petition wherein wild allegations have been levelled against the officer and the institution. Therefore, the petition is not a bona fide petition to be taken cognizance in the scheme of public interest litigation. It is a petition with a malicious intention to coerce the institution to investigate into the matter according to his choice. If such kind of petitions are to be entertained then it will be very difficult for the officers who are associated with the investigation wing of the Lokayukt institution to work honestly and objectively. This kind of practice is totally undesirable. To entertain such kind of public interest litigation is nothing but a totally abuse of the process of the Court. We may note here that an enquiry has been held against the respondent No.3 and he has been given a clean chit. The allegations against the respondent No.3 have been rightly found to be frivolous in the Departmental Enquiry. 5. Thus, on a close scrutiny of facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the present petition was filed for personal vengeance and self-satisfaction and not for any actual public interest. The allegations against the respondent No.3 have been rightly found to be frivolous in the Departmental Enquiry. 5. Thus, on a close scrutiny of facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the present petition was filed for personal vengeance and self-satisfaction and not for any actual public interest. We dismiss this petition with a cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit the amount within three months from today failing which action will be taken against him in accordance with law.