Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The petitioner association in the name of "Young Blood Yuva Samiti" claimed to be engaged in the work of public welfare and social development and for the protection of environment selected out of various problems in the city and approached to this Court under the label of public interest litigation seeking directions to remove the encroachment on the public land made by the respondent No. 2 M/s. Purshottamdas Jagdishchandra. 2. It is averred that the second respondent namely M/s. Purshottamdas Jagdishchandra H.P.C.L. Petrol Pump, has constructed underground fuel storage tank just below and alongside the main road. There was an old underground Nala running near the side of Chopasani main road which has been blocked. As a result of the encroachment the fuel storage tank is existing just below the Chopasani main road on which heavy traffic passes through. It is apprehended that it may lead to a serious accident. It is further submitted that on account of blocking of Nala, the waste water goes spread on the road obviously affecting the health of the people residing in the nearby area. 3. It appears that the land in dispute was leased out by Shri Shanker Lal Parihar way back in the year 1967 in favour of M/s Caltex India Limited, which was subsequently acquired by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for a period of 30 years, on which the present retail outlet of petroleum products is functioning. The dealership for running the outlet of the petroleum products was given to the second respondent by HPCL in the year 1964. It appears that the widow of Shri Shankar Lal namely Smt. Padma Devi wants to get the premises vacated and, as such, she filed a civil suit against the HPCL in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Jodhpur. It further appears that Smt. Padma Devi made certain complaints of Municipal Board for restraining the second respondent from using the tank on public land. The Municipal Corporation initially proceeded under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation by an order dated 11.05.2001 held that the encroachment was in contravention of the provisions of Municipalities Act. He cancelled the licence of the second respondent and ordered for removal of the encroachment. The Municipal Corporation initially proceeded under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation by an order dated 11.05.2001 held that the encroachment was in contravention of the provisions of Municipalities Act. He cancelled the licence of the second respondent and ordered for removal of the encroachment. The petitioner seeks direction for the execution of the said order without disclosing the fact that the said order has been set aside in the revision by order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 211.2001. The copy of the order of Divisional Commissioner has been placed on record by the second respondent as Annexure-R/2/4. It has also been brought to our notice that the order of Divisional Commissioner has been challenged by way of writ petition before this Court and the same is pending for hearing before the learned Single Judge. 4. There are allegations and counter allegations. It is not necessary for us to enter into the said controversy. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground that the material fact has been concealed from this Court. The petitioner seeks direction to execute the order which is non-existent, as the same has been set aside by a competent authority. It clearly appears that instant petition has been espoused by the land lord namely Smt. Padma Devi. The Apex Court has deprecated to entertain such sort of petitions under the label of Public Interest Litigation. Reference may be made to Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) SCC 590 . 5. The writ petition is dismissed at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-.