Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant petition under the label of public interest litigation has been filed in the name of 14 persons resident of Raghunathpura, Tehsil, Sawa, District, Chittorgarh complaining nuisance caysed by blasting in quarry ML-2/85. It is averred that the first petitioner namely Abdul Samad Khan owns agricultural land in Khasra No. 63 measuring 01.91 Bighas and in Khasra No. 64 measuring 0.44 Bighas in total 1.35 Bighas of land situated in village Kantharia, Meeno Ki Dhani, Sawa Tehsil, District, Chittorgarh. Adjoining the agricultural land of the first petitioner, the fifth respondent has been wrongly granted a mining lease bearing No. ML-2/85 for mineral China Clay. The petitioners have referred to an incident of 012.2000 when on account of heavy blasting by the fifth respondent the nearby houses, Dhanias and tube wells were damaged. An inquiry was also conducted by an officer appointed by the Dy. Director, Mines and Safety Department, Udaipur. Inspite of repeated representations made to the higher authorities, nothing has been done to cancel the mining lease granted in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioners have sought following directions:- “(a) the impugned Mine ML-2/85 of Respondent No. 5 situated in village Meenon ka Kathriya and Bansati tehsil and district Chittorgarh, allotted by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to Respondent No. 5 may kindly be quashed and cancelled. (b) the Respondent No. 5 may kindly be directed to make payment of the compensation as per report of the Respondent No. 4 to the petitioners and adjoining neighbours, who sustained damage due to heavy blasting by Respondent No. 5 on 012.2000 with interest of 9% per annum.” 2. A counter has been filed supported by the affidavit of Shri Dharmendra Lohar, Mining Engineer (Writ), Department of Mines and Geology, Jodhpur. It is averred that the subject Mine was granted in the year 1965. The Respondent No. 5 had obtained a permission. Normally there is no necessity of blasting during the course of mining operations. The Respondent No. 5 had obtained permission from the Director, Mines, Safety, Udaipur Zone in March, 2001. On complaints being received against the Respondent No. 5 about blasting inquiries were conducted. The Dy. Chief Controller of Blasting, Jaipur found that there was no damage due to blasting in the mine in question. The relevant inquiry reports have been placed on record. On complaints being received against the Respondent No. 5 about blasting inquiries were conducted. The Dy. Chief Controller of Blasting, Jaipur found that there was no damage due to blasting in the mine in question. The relevant inquiry reports have been placed on record. A report Annexure-R/4 has also been placed on record which shows that the Mining Engineer, Chittorgarh had inspected the site and it was found that no mining operation is carried in Khasra Nos. 63 and 64. Moreover, the residential houses are at a distance of about 600 Mtrs. from the leased area. .3. The fifth respondent has also filed a separate reply. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to the fifth respondent the instant petition has been filed mala fidely with a view to harass and humuliate the contesting respondent. It is pointed out that the first petitioner is none else but the uncle of the fifth respondent (first cousin of the father of the Respondent No. 5). There has been series of litigations between the father of the fifth respondent and the Petitioner No. 1 with regard to the joint ancestral land including the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 63 and 64. He has referred to the various litigations between them as follows:- .(1) There is a joint ancestral land comprises of Khasra Nos. 63 and 64 belonging to Petitioner No. 1 and father of the fifth respondent. The first petitioner has sold substantial part of the joint ancestral land without there being any partition. The father of the answering Respondent No. 5 with other co-owners of the land filed a revenue suit in the year 1996 before the Assistant Collector-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh for declaration of sale-deeds executed by the Petitioner No. 1 in favour of M/s J.K. White Cement Works, Gotan to be void, for partition and permanent injunction. It is not necessary to give further details of the dispute. It is suffice to say that a second appeal in the matter between the parties is pending before the Board of Revenue. .(2) Thefirst petitioner had executed an agreement for sale of 28 Bighas of land in favour of the fifth respondent for a consideration of Rs. 4 Lakhs, but subsequently the first petitioner refused to execute the sale-deed and as such a suit for specific performance was filed. .(2) Thefirst petitioner had executed an agreement for sale of 28 Bighas of land in favour of the fifth respondent for a consideration of Rs. 4 Lakhs, but subsequently the first petitioner refused to execute the sale-deed and as such a suit for specific performance was filed. Arising from the said dispute a Civil First Appeal being No. 178/2003 is pending before this Court. .(3) Thereis another revenue litigation pending between the first petitioner and fifth respondent in respect of Arazi Nos. 60, 61, 62, 57, 58 and 59 in village Meenon Ki Kantharia. .(4) Theson of the first petitioner filed a First Information Report against the fifth respondent and about 20 others for offence under Sections 143, 447, 427, 343, 323, 438 and 379, IPC. The police after investigation found no case against the fifth respondent. .(5) That the fifth respondent is the Chairman of the State Minority Cell and also the member of the Indian National Congress, whereas the Petitioners No. 2 to 5 belong to Bhartiya Janta Party. The Petitioner No. 2 lost the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Cheeksi. 4. On the merit of the case, it is submitted that the residential houses are about 1 Km. away from the mining area. As far as blasting in mines is concerned, it is stated by the fifth respondent that he has deployed latest mining machineries viz. two number of Shovels (L & T Excavators, back Hoe Type), two Front End Loaders (JCB) and 8 number of Dumpers. It is further averred that the last blasting was done in the year 2002 and since then no blasting has undertaken. It is further stated that in future also there are no chances of blasting on account of deployment of latest mining machineries. As regards the incident of 2000, it is averred that the matter was investigated by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB) and it was found that no damage was caused to the houses situated at a distance of 700-800 Mtrs. It is further submitted that the blasting has been totally stopped. It is denied that the fifth respondent is excavating China Clay. In fact, he is excavating red-ochre, which is secondary type of deposits accumulated in lower land. It is a soft mineral and does not require blasting. The mineral can be mined with the help of crowbar, spade etc. It is further submitted that the blasting has been totally stopped. It is denied that the fifth respondent is excavating China Clay. In fact, he is excavating red-ochre, which is secondary type of deposits accumulated in lower land. It is a soft mineral and does not require blasting. The mineral can be mined with the help of crowbar, spade etc. During course of manual mining occasional shallow hole blasting as was done in the year 2000 and 2002 may be required to crack superficial caping of red-ochre found on surface. Thus, the question of causing any nuisance does not arise. The entire operation is carried in a most scientific manner. It is submitted that mining lease has been renewed from time to time after being satisfied by all angles including the safety. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, we are satisfied that no issue of public interest is involved in the instant petition. On the contrary, it can safely be concluded that the instant petition is pollutted by personal grudge and enmity. It is a camouflage to foster personal dispute. The Apex Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2005 (1) SCC 590 , has observed that a writ petitioner, who comes to the Court for relief in public interest, must come not only with the clean hands like any other writ petition but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. On account of such proceedings under the lable of public interest litigation a valuable time of the Court is wasted, which could otherwise be utilized for disposal of genuine cases. On account of such proceedings under the lable of public interest litigation a valuable time of the Court is wasted, which could otherwise be utilized for disposal of genuine cases. In this regard the Supreme Court in Dattaraj’s case (Supra), has observed as follows:- “Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters-Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of genuine litigatns and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.” 6. On careful consideration we find that the instant petition falls in the category of private interest litigation. Petitioners are guilty of grossly abusing the process of this Court by camouflaging in the name of PIL. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.