Judgment : GANGULY, J. (1.) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Asian Village Society (hrerinafter called the petitioner), a Society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, challenging, inter alia, the decision of the Excise Authorities to allow the manufacturers of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) to sell liquor in recycled bottles. In the writ petition the petitioner, has described itself as a non-Goyernment self-dependent educational and Technological Service Organisation with a spirit for public welfare. It has also been stated that the petitioner filed the Public Interest Litigation in the interest of consumers of IMFL as such consumers are unaware of the quality of bottles used by IMFL manufacturers. As such, the consumers of IMFL very often contact diseases by consuming liquor from such bottles. In a civilised society it is necessary to protect the interest of the members of the public who are unaware of the dangers involved in the reuse of old bottles. It has also been stated that the petitioner has no personal interest and the Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the interest of public who cannot individually come and ventilate their grievances. These averments have been made in Paragraphs 35 and 37 of the writ petition justifying the filing of the Public Interest Litigation, (2.) The basic facts in this case are as follows :-By a Notification dated 21st January, 2003 published in the Official Gazette it was stated that all IMFL manufacturers shall use new bottles for IMFL and it appears from the affidavit of the Excise Commissioner that the said order was issued in public interest. Thereafter, the said Notification dated 21st January, 2003 was kept under suspension by a subsequent order dated 27th July, 2003 and such suspension has been continued from time of time. Ultimately by an order dated 8th March, 2005, which has been issued by the Excise Department, Government of West Bengal, it has been ordered that the initial Notification dated 21st January, 2003 shall remain suspended until further orders. It was also stated by the Government Order dated 8th March, 2005 that the previous Government Orders dated 29th July, 2003 and 26th March, 2004 are ratified. It was also stated by the Government Order dated 8th March, 2005 that the previous Government Orders dated 29th July, 2003 and 26th March, 2004 are ratified. (3.) The subject-matter of challenge in this Public Interest Litigation is the correctness or legality of the subsequent orders dated 29th July, 2003 and 26th March, 2004 as also 8th March, 2005 by which the initial order of 21st January, 2003 has been suspended. (4.) Sequentially put these are the basic facts and on these facts various arguments have been advanced. Mainly it has been argued by the petitioner that if IMFL is sold in recycled bottles, instead of new bottles, the liquor is likely to be contaminated as the possibility of cleaning of the bottles properly and hygienically is rather bleak. It has been stated that after the IMFL is consumed, the consumer does not take any care of the empty bottles. Such bottles are sold to rag pickers who store such bottles in a dump and do not take any care of its cleanliness. Thereafter such bottles are sold to IMFL manufacturer and their process of cleaning is not satisfactory. It has also been stated that the average concern for cleanliness in this country is very poor and the same is manifested in the cleaning process of used bottles. As such, it is very unsafe to rely on the process of cleaning of an old and used bottle which is used again by the IMFL manufacturers. It has been stated that ultimately the consumers suffer as they have to drink the liquor from such used bottles, cleaning process of which is highly suspect. (5.) The learned Counsel for the State has contended to the contrary and submitted that the policy decision of selling IMFL in recycled bottles was taken after due deliberation and after considering the representation of all the affected parties. It was also stated that it might be that the initial decision of selling IMFL in new bottles was taken in public interest but that does not mean that the subsequent decision of selling IMFL in used bottles cannot be taken in public interest. The learned Counsel submitted that public interest is not a fixed notion and the Government is well within its right to change its policy decision in the interest of the IMFL industry or in the interest of generating revenue of the State. The learned Counsel submitted that public interest is not a fixed notion and the Government is well within its right to change its policy decision in the interest of the IMFL industry or in the interest of generating revenue of the State. It was stated that each time if a new bottle has to be used, the same would add to the cost of the liquor and that may affect the consumption rate of IMFL and ultimately the same may affect the State revenue. It was stated that there are statutory provisions under the rules for cleaning process and there is no reason to assume that such process will not be followed. The learned Counsel submitted that there are various aspects of the matter and all these have been taken into consideration in taking the subsequent decision and it is going on, on a trial basis. It was submitted that the initial decision as reflected in the Notification dated 21st January, 2003, has not been given a complete go-by but has been kept under suspension in order to find out whether the other system of selling IMFL in recycled bottle works out satisfactorily or not. It is further submitted that by allowing the sale of IMFL in used bottles no violation has been made of any provisions of Excise Act and the Rules. In fact the sale of IMFL with recycled bottles was going on without any objection for about more than 50 years before the issuance of the notification dated 21.01.2003. (6.) The added party namely the Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies, has also contested this proceeding. The learned Counsel appearing for the added party questioned the locus standi of the petitioners/Society to file this Public Interest Litigation. It has also been submitted that the Public Interest Litigation has been filed at the instance of the bottle manufacturers and the same is clear from Paragraph 6 of the petition in which it has been stated that the capacity of production of glass bottles is more than what is being utilised and increase in bottle production can be achieved easily as glass is fully recyclable. Pointing out these averments in the writ petition the learned Counsel for the added parties submits that this clearly shows whose interest is sought to be protected by filing this Public Interest Litigation. Pointing out these averments in the writ petition the learned Counsel for the added parties submits that this clearly shows whose interest is sought to be protected by filing this Public Interest Litigation. Of course the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners has strongly denied the said objection that the petition was filed at the instance of bottle manufacturers. (7.) Considering the aforesaid contentions this Court is of the opinion that this proceeding cannot be accepted as a Public Interest Litigation for following reasons which appear to this Court in the course of hearing :-a) Admittedly this Public Interest Litigation has been filed for the benefit of the consumers of I.M.F.L. It is common knowledge that consumers of I.M.F.L. come from affluent sections of the society. Therefore such consumers are not impeded from coming to this Court on their own by reason of poverty. That has not been argued either on the part of the petitioner. b) It is also common knowledge that amongst the consumers of I.M.F.L., there is a large section of people who are educated and some of whom even belong to elite section of the society. Therefore, it cannot be said that by reason of ignorance of the dangers involved in the consumption of I.M.F.L. from recycled bottle the consumers cannot come to this Court. It cannot be said that there is a lack of awareness amongst this group of people. (c) The writ petitioner cannot assume and in fact, no valid basis for such assumption has been demonstrated in the course of hearing that consumers of I.M.F.L. who, as noted above, come from an affluent well educated class of the society, are unaware of the health hazards if any, in consuming I.M.F.L.from recycled bottles. Therefore, those who actually consume I.M.F.L. are not complaining. Not a single consumer of I.M.F.L. has joined the proceedings while it was pending before this Court for quite some time. This is very unusual in these days of consumerism and especially so when a specific forum for consumer protection is easily available. (d) The consumption of liquor is itself injurious to health. So knowing it fully well the consumers are indulging in the habit of consuming I.M.F.L. It cannot be said that I.M.F.L. is a basic necessity of life. This is very unusual in these days of consumerism and especially so when a specific forum for consumer protection is easily available. (d) The consumption of liquor is itself injurious to health. So knowing it fully well the consumers are indulging in the habit of consuming I.M.F.L. It cannot be said that I.M.F.L. is a basic necessity of life. It is not a case that people are taking contaminated water or rotten food grains or adulterated milk and for the prevention of which a Public Interest Litigation has been filed. It is well known that consumers of I.M.F.L. still represent a very microscopic minority in our society and their habit of such consumption is by way of luxury and addiction. It is certainly not a vital necessity for existence. So public in general are not interested nor their interest is involved in this litigation. (e) Therefore if the consumers themselves feel that their health is affected as a result of consuming I.M.F.L. from recycled bottle they can come and complain before the appropriate forum. But certainly their case cannot be taken up at the instance of the petitioner/Society. (8.) So in the background of these facts the objection by the added party and also the State that the case has been filed at the instance of bottle manufacturers cannot be ruled out totally. So on these facts this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition cannot be accepted as Public Interest Litigation at the instance of the said Society. (9.) In Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors., 1992 (4) SCC 305 the Apex Court after a detailed discussion of the law on the subject opined at para 109 (page 348 of the report) as follows :- "It is thus clear that 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 considering. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. (10.) After relying on the principles in Janata Dal, the same caution has been sounded by the Apex Court in Dr. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. (10.) After relying on the principles in Janata Dal, the same caution has been sounded by the Apex Court in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors., reported in JT 2004 (3) SC 127. The observations in Paragraph 10, page 133 of the report are very apt :-"Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens." (11.) For these reasons which are discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed. But this Court makes it clear that whether the notifications which have been issued and which have been challenged in this case are legally valid or not has not been examined by this Court in depth as this Court is of the opinion that this proceeding, at the instance of the said society, cannot be accepted as a Public Interest Litigation. Those questions are left open and can be considered in appropriate proceedings at the appropriate forum and at the instance of appropriate parties. (12.) The writ petition is therefore dismissed with the aforesaid observations. There will be no order as to costs. Later-Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment if applied for, be available to the parties expeditiously. I agree.