Judgment :- A.P. Shah, C.J. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shows to what extent the process of law can be abused. Though the writ petition carries the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation, no public interest is involved whatsoever in this writ petition and in fact, to use the words of Arijit Pasayat, J., in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540 : 2005 (1) SCC 590 it is a 'private interest litigation' or 'political interest litigation'. 2. The writ petition is purportedly filed for a direction to the fourth respondent/CBI, to investigate and take action under appropriate provisions of law in respect of the transactions relating to the release of advertisements by the first respondent/BSNL to the companies in which the ownership is vested with the rela­tives and/or family members of the third re­spondent, Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology. The petitioner has alleged that the brother of the third respondent is the owner of certain television channels and cer­tain newspapers. According to the petitioner, the third respondent joined the Union Cabinet of Ministers in or about May, 2004 and after assuming charge of the Ministry, the third re­spondent, through the first respondent, in or­der to enrich himself and for the benefit of his relatives and family members, has started to issue release orders for advertisements in the television channels and radio stations owned and controlled by his relatives and family members. The petitioner has alleged that by this process, the third respondent has diverted more than ten crore rupees to the incorporated companies of his relatives which own some television channels and radio stations from the date of his assumption of office in the Minis­try. The petitioner has gone to the extent of saying that the Ministry has become the family business of the third respondent and that the third respondent is treating the Ministry as a partnership concern, wherein he and his family members are partners. An allegation is also made that the third respondent has released advertisements only to the programmes which were produced by the third respondent's brother and even though there are private producers who telecast their programmes in Sun TV, not even a single advertisement was released in favour of the producers of the first respondent. An allegation is also made that the third respondent has released advertisements only to the programmes which were produced by the third respondent's brother and even though there are private producers who telecast their programmes in Sun TV, not even a single advertisement was released in favour of the producers of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, this would show that the third respondent has scientifically diverted the public funds to the business of his family members, whereby the third respondent and his family has enriched themselves. The entire foundation of this case is the tariff of advertisements in Sun TV, which has been reproduced in the petition. 3. The first and second respondents have filed counter affidavit. It is seen from the counter affidavits that the first respondent/BSNL came into existence from 1.10.2000, being a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. Neither the second respondent nor the third respondent had given any written or oral instructions as to how the advertisements of BSNL have to be given to the television media and print media or to any channel in particular. The question of advertisements in the television and print media has not even been taken to the Board level and the same is decided by the Deputy Director General (Marketing), Head Quarters of BSNL at New Delhi for All India based TV channels and only based on such broad parameters laid down by the Deputy Director-General, advertisements are given region-wise by taking orders from the concerned Chief General Manager of the various Circles situated throughout India. It is further seen that broadly; in deciding the award of advertisements to 1V channels and newspapers, viewer ship in the case of TV channels' and readership as per circulation in the case of newspapers are mainly taken into account. In the case of TV channels, the viewer ship rating as given by the Television Audience Measurement, otherwise called TAM Reports, which are scientifically prepared by an independent' agency run by RC Nelson and WIRB situated in Mumbai, is taken into account. In the case of TV channels, the viewer ship rating as given by the Television Audience Measurement, otherwise called TAM Reports, which are scientifically prepared by an independent' agency run by RC Nelson and WIRB situated in Mumbai, is taken into account. The extent of the value of advertisements will not only depend upon the viewer ship ratings for various TV channels, but also the tariffs for the various slots of any particular TV channel, as for example, certain slots during certain hours in the day which are considered to be more important (called 'prime time') than the other slots in the rest of the day Consequently, a TV channel or a newspaper which has the maximum viewer ship or readership as the case may be, have higher tariffs for advertisements in their channel or newspaper than other TV channels and newspapers which have lower ratings. 4. The details of advertisements given by BSNL to TV channels and newspapers right from the year 2002-2003 upto, 2005-2006 are furnished before the Court. It is seen from the charts which are produced before the Court that the allegations made in the writ petition are totally false and malafide. It is seen that advertisements are given to a large number of TV channels and newspapers even if many of them do not have much viewership or readership. As far as Sun TV is concerned, it is seen that in the year 2003-2004, advertisements worth Rs.20,34,150/- were given, whereas in the year 2004-2005, the extent of advertisements was Rs.25,40,934/- and in the year 2005-2006, the approximate figure of advertisements given is stated to be around Rs.55,00,000/-. Incidentally, Sun TV has the highest TRP rating throughout this period amongst the TV channels in Tamil Nadu to whom advertisements were issued by BSNL. It is also brought to our notice that the aforesaid issue of advertisements by BSNL was also raised by a Member of Parliament and it is seen from the answers given to the star question that no undue favours are shown to any particular TV channel. It is also brought to our notice that the aforesaid issue of advertisements by BSNL was also raised by a Member of Parliament and it is seen from the answers given to the star question that no undue favours are shown to any particular TV channel. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has alleged that more than ten crore rupees have been diverted to the TV channels owned by the family members of the third respondent, whereas Doordarshan, which has a viewer ship of more than 400 million, has not been given the advertisements to the extent they are given to the channels owned by the relatives of the third respondent. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out that Doordarshan has been given extensive advertisements to the total value of Rs.42,18,202/- for the year 2004-2005, whereas Sun TV has been given advertisements only to the value of Rs.25,40,934/- during the said period, despite the better viewer ship rating enjoyed by Sun TV than Doordarshan. It is regrettable that such false and malicious allegations are coming and from a practicing advocate. 5. We are satisfied that the writ petition has been filed only for malafide and oblique purposes, though ostensibly, it is filed in the interest of public. The timing of the filing of this writ petition also assumes importance in the wake of the announcement of the Schedule of Elections for the General Assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu. In paragraph 16 of his affidavit, the petitioner has claimed that ap­prehending danger to his life and personal lib­erty, he has not, sent any representations to anyone and was, therefore, knocking the doors of this Court. This allegation is wholly scandalous. Even according to his affidavit, he came to know about the alleged diversion of public funds in September/October, 2005, but he has chosen to file the present writ peti­tion after the date of notification of polls in the State of Tamil Nadu, i.e., after 1.3.2006. 6. The writ petitioner, who comes to the Court for the relief in public interest, must not only come with clean hands, but also with clean heart, clean mind and clean objectives. It is distressing to note that this Court is flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litiga­tions which are apparently sponsored by one po­litical party or the other, where no public interest whatsoever is involved. It is distressing to note that this Court is flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litiga­tions which are apparently sponsored by one po­litical party or the other, where no public interest whatsoever is involved. The time has come to weed out such petitions by imposing on the peti­tioners, exemplary costs. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's case (supra), Arijit Pasayat, J. speaking for the Bench, observed that if not prop­erly regulated and the abuse averted, it (PIL) be­comes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adven­ture of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary ju­risdiction. A person acting bonafide and hav­ing sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal pin or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. The learned Judge further went on to observe in paragraphs 11 and 12 as follows: "It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine liti­gants. The learned Judge further went on to observe in paragraphs 11 and 12 as follows: "It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine liti­gants. 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., 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 litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 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 armory of law for delivering social Justice to citizens. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social Justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the Court is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. 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 as 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." 7. The Courts should bear in mind the caution given by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 : (1981) Supp. SCC 87 that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of Public Interest Litigation does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. In S. P. Gupta's case (supra) BHAGWATI, J. observed thus: "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective." 8. Another disturbing feature of the present writ petition is that it has been filed by a practicing member of this noble profession. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective." 8. Another disturbing feature of the present writ petition is that it has been filed by a practicing member of this noble profession. It is unfortunate that there is an increasing tendency amongst the members of the Bar to file such petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation, which are remotely connected with public interest. In our opinion, this is a fit case for imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner. Let the message go to the litigating public that the forum of this Court is not to be abused by filing petitions sponsored by political parties to gain political mileage. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition and impose on the petitioner, a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be payable to the first and third respondents. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 7410 of 2006 is closed. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks leave of this Court to appeal to the Supreme Court. His application is rejected. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also seeks stay of this order. This application is also rejected. Petition dismissed.