JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner is a practising lawyer and former Member of the Legislative Assembly. By the instant "Public Interest Litigator)", he seeks direction against the respondents No. 1 & 2 to take appropriate action for regularisation of the subject land made in favour of the persons named in Schedule II. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition, we are of the view that no issue of pubic interest is involved. It is averred that in Village Neemla, the land measuring 392.58 hectares was reserved for pasture land, which was un-authorisedly got recorded as 'Banjar land. On the basis of the illegal change in the revenue record, certain land grabbers trespassed on the land. The proceedings were initiated under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. At the instance of the petitioner, proceedings were initiated under Section 136 of the said Act. It appears that there have been lengthy revenue proceedings. The matter was decided by is the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalore on 3.1.2002. It is alleged that the land has been regularised by corrupt means. The matter was agitated before the District Vigilance Committee. In the opinion of the Committee, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, he may approach to the competent Court for the relief. 3. In our view, the Vigilance Committee has rightly observed that the petitioner may avail remedy available under the law. Moreso, a public interest litigation cannot he maintained, when tiled by a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. 4. In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 295 , the Apex Court has observed as follows: "It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the undergo and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants." 5. No interference is warranted by this Court on a petition under the label of 'Public Interest Litigation'. 6. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******