Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. P.Suyambulingadurai, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent, the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Power Energy Resources and the second respondent, the Chief Engineer, N.C.E.S., Chennai, to take necessary action against the respondents 4 to 7, viz., Suzlon Wind Form, Enercon (Indian) Limited, N.E.P.C. Wind Mill and N.E.G. Micon Limited, to re-erect the unauthorisedly erected transmission poles to some other location without affecting the safety and convenience of the public. 2. According to the petitioner, the Dhanakarkulam Panchayat, in which the petitioner functions as Panchayat Vice President, is comprised of 9 villages with 11 ponds, besides the Anuman River. The various firms, the respondents 4 to 7 have commenced installing wind mills on the shoreline of the Panchayat to generate electricity. They have erected transmission poles across the breadth of the river as well as ponds. As the ponds are being used by the village population, the installation of such transmission poles and the transmission lines would have fatal impact on the human population and would cause havoc to neighbouring population as once the monsoon sets in water would force through the river breaking the poles, resulting in the electrocution of the water bed. The people of Dhanakarkulam went in a mass protest against the erection of High Transmission poles in the inner side of 11 tanks. The petitioner as the Vice President of Dhanakarkulam Panchayat reported to the Chief Engineer about the consequences of life and destruction of things and requested to stop the erection of poles. There was no response. Therefore, he filed a petition in W.P.No.32070 of 2003 reporting about the inaction of the Chief Engineer. The First Bench of this Court by the order dated 19.9.2003 directed the Chief Engineer to dispose of his representation within four weeks. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, second respondent, disposed of his representation and sent a letter stating that there is no such unauthorised installation or erection of poles at the river beds. However, he was asked to show any photo proof and exact survey numbers with respect of such unauthorised erection and if it is proved with photos and survey numbers, the same thing would be replaced. However, he was asked to show any photo proof and exact survey numbers with respect of such unauthorised erection and if it is proved with photos and survey numbers, the same thing would be replaced. In response to the said letter, the petitioner sent a letter on 19.6.2004 showing the exact particulars of survey number and the photos. Despite that, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed another petition in W.P.No.28598 of 2004 as a public interest litigation. Then, by the order dated 5.10.2004, the Division Bench of this Court directed the Chief Engineer to dispose of the representation dated 19.6.2004 within three months. Thereafter, the petitioner was called to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli on 27.11.2004. He was assured that the action would be taken within ten days. But however, the second respondent, in pursuance of the order dated 5.10.2004 concluded the enquiry and sent a letter on 5.1.2005 to the petitioner dismissing the representation of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition by way of public interest litigation seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. 3. According to the second respondent, the Chief Engineer, the petition claiming it to be a public interest litigation would not involve public interest litigation and it is only a private interest litigation. The letter sent by the petitioner dated 3.9.2003 would indicate that the petitioner wanted that the lands to be purchased from the owners of the private lands for the purpose of putting up the poles. The documents filed before this Court would indicate that the petitioner sold the private lands as a Power of Attorney to the various firms for putting up wind mills. Further, the petitioner himself as a Contractor has received money from the fourth respondent for the purpose of putting up wind mills and poles. Therefore, the petitioner could not be heard to contend that this petition has been filed by way of public interest. Further, the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner were enquired into by the Division Bench and direction has been given lastly on 5.10.2004 that the representation sent by the petitioner on 19.6.2004 shall be disposed of within three months. Accordingly, the enquiry was held on 27.11.2004 and only after the enquiry, the representation was disposed of by the order dated 5.1.2005. Admittedly, the said order has not been challenged. Accordingly, the enquiry was held on 27.11.2004 and only after the enquiry, the representation was disposed of by the order dated 5.1.2005. Admittedly, the said order has not been challenged. In the absence of any challenge to the order passed by the second respondent, the writ petition for Mandamus is not maintainable. Moreover, the facts given in the affidavit filed by the petitioner are not correct. As a matter of fact, the respondents commenced erection of wind mills only after getting the necessary endorsement from the second respondent and tie-up approval for connecting the power generated by Wind Electric Generators. Only after getting the prior approval by way of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the second respondent, the other respondents laid necessary poles as per the sanctioned and approved estimates and drawings as approved by T.N.E.B. and as per the standard practices and under the supervision of representatives of the T.N.E.B. While such works are executed across or along the rivers/ponds, the other respondents have been taking utmost care and precautions to provide necessary guy wires/stay supports/earthing devices so as to not to cause any hazard to the life around such rivers/ponds. There was no resistance or protest from the public when the lines and poles were erected and installed. 4. In this line, all the other respondents have filed their respective counter-affidavits. 5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to their rival contentions. 6. On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the records available in this case, we are of the view that this petition has to be dismissed on two counts. 7. The typed set filed by the second respondent and fourth respondent would indicate that the petitioner executed a sale deed as a Power of Attorney for the respondent Companies on 14.4.2004 and there is also lease agreement entered into by the petitioner as Power Agent and other persons for erecting poles. The document dated 15.2.2005 also would show that there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the fourth respondent Company with reference to the wind mill erection. Thus, it is clear that some lands have been sold by the petitioner to some of the respondents as a Power of Attorney and besides that, the petitioner is a Contractor for executing the pole erection work and Line Stringing work within the area. Thus, it is clear that some lands have been sold by the petitioner to some of the respondents as a Power of Attorney and besides that, the petitioner is a Contractor for executing the pole erection work and Line Stringing work within the area. As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15.2.2005, the petitioner received service charges of Rs.10,000/- per pole for erecting 40 poles and he has received from the fourth respondent 40 cheques. Therefore, the petitioner has got interest in the subject matter. By suppressing the said facts in order to compel the respondent Companies to purchase the lands from him or for making him as a Contractor for installation of wind mills, it is stated that this present writ petition has been filed under the garb of public interest litigation. 8. It is specifically alleged in the counter filed by the fourth respondent that the petitioner himself has sold lands to various wind mill operators as a Power of Attorney of the original land owners. The petitioner in his capacity of Power of Attorney has sold certain portions of land to the fourth respondent Company also. The petitioner was also awarded with contracts to erect poles to connect the stringing lines from the wind mill to the sub station for transmission of energy. The petitioner has also received the full payment for executing the said work by way of cheques. The petitioner also under the guise of Power of Attorney of various wind mill operators has filed suits before the Civil Courts as against the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and other wind mill operators in regard to the sanctioning for installation of wind mills. The petitioner who was all along involved in the erection of wind mills by arranging lands for such erection of wind mills to the wind mill operators has been undertaking works for such erection and erecting poles for drawing power lines for transmission of energy has with an ulterior motive to gain unjust enrichment, started to threaten the wind mill operators to award contracts and purchase lands through him. 9. The petitioner is not able to deny those specific allegations made in the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. 9. The petitioner is not able to deny those specific allegations made in the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. Therefore, the above facts would go to show that the petitioner who has been benefited by the activities of erection of wind mills and poles, by various wind mill operators, has developed the novel idea to indirectly pressurize the wind mill companies to purchase more lands which would benefit him. He has chosen to file the writ petition without giving the true facts. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has indulged in the practice of pressurizing the respondents to come to terms with him for gaining the illegal benefits. 10. Nextly, having obtained orders from the Division Bench of this Court directing the Chief Engineer to dispose of the representation dated 19.6.2004 made by the petitioner and having participated in the enquiry on 27.11.2004 through which the representation was disposed of by the order dated 5.1.2005, filing of the writ petition seeking for a Mandamus without challenging the order dated 5.1.2005 cannot be said to be the proper course. Since there are prima facie materials to conclude that the petitioner who has got a personal interest in the subject matter, has approached this Court and abused the process of law by presenting the incorrect particulars after suppression of relevant facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who has not come with clean hands, has to be directed to pay suitable costs. 11. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the observations made by the Supreme Court in ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF W.B. (2004(3) S.C.C.349), B.SINGH(DR) v. UNION OF INDIA (2004(3) S.C.C.363) and DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2005(1) S.C.C.590), which are as follows: I. Only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL, will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. II. II. A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The court shall not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. III. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 12. The above observations of the Supreme Court would, in our view, apply to the present facts of the case in all fours. Under those circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that the petitioner has filed this petition by abusing the process of law. 13. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition and giving a warning to the petitioner not to indulge in this kind of practice in future, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- as costs to be paid to Tamilnadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras, within one month. 14. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.7605 and 7606 of 2005 are also dismissed.