( 1 ) B. J. SHETHNA, J. Petitioner " Shri Yatin N. Oza, Senior Advocate practising in this Court and former President of High Court Advocates Association, has filed this petition in 2005 as a Senior Advocate and President of High Court Advocates Association and also ex-Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of State of Gujarat. He has filed this petition as Public Interest Litigation as a conscious citizen and person in public life. ( 2 ) FOLLOWING prayers have been made in this petition: "to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no. 1 to handover all relevant files and papers to the Central Bureau of Investigation for the fresh investigation and prosecution in the matter of role played by the respondent nos. 5 to 7 in not making timely arrest of Abdul Sattar Abdul Habib Hamdani alias sattar Maulana in pursuance of FIR registered as Cr. I 43 / 94 at Porbandar (Kamalbag), B Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 34, 121, 121-A, 122 and 123 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 (1-B)A, 25 (1-AA) and Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 9 (B) of the Explosive Act read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. " "to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the report of Justice Dave Commission produced at annexure L to this petition, so far as and to the extend it gives finding to the effect that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 and the other officers whose names are disclosed in Chapter 11 of the Report have not committed any mistake much less serious mistake in not arresting Abdul Sattar Abdul Habib Hamdani alias "sattar Maulana. "" "to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to ignore the report of Justice Dave Commission produced at annexure L to the petition, so far as and to the extend it gives finding to the effect that the respondent nos. "" "to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to ignore the report of Justice Dave Commission produced at annexure L to the petition, so far as and to the extend it gives finding to the effect that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 and the other officers whose names are disclosed in Chapter 11 of the Report have not committed any mistake much less serious mistake in not arresting Abdul Sattar Abdul Habib Hamdani alias "sattar Maulana" and further be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to take disciplinary action against the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in accordance with the respective discipline and appeal rules applicable to them and consequently punish them under such rules. " "to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:-Directing the respondent no. 1 to suspend the respondent no. 6 and 7 from service pending contemplated departmental inquiry and also pending departmental inquiry, forthwith or within the time which may be stipulated by this Hon ble Court. Directing the respondent no. 8 to suspend respondent no. 5 from service pending contemplated departmental inquiry and also pending departmental, inquiry, forthwith or within the time whish may be stipulated by this Hon ble Court. Directing the respondent no. 1 to initiate departmental inquiry against the respondent nos. 6 and 7 forthwith, or within the time which may be stipulated by this Hon ble Court. Directing the respondent no. 8 to initiate departmental inquiry against respondent no. 5 forthwith or within the time which may be stipulated by this Hon ble Court. Directing the respondent to prosecute inter alia respondent no. 5, respondent nos. 6 and 7 for the offences punishable under Section 3 (4) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, forthwith or within the time which may be stipulated by this Hon ble Court. " First prayer is for handing over investigation to CBI regarding role played by the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, who are police officers, in not making timely arrest of the accused sattar Maulana in pursuance of FIR registered in 1994. Second prayer is to quash and set aside report of Commission of Retired Justice S. D. Dave in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 5 to 7, who are police officers, in not making timely arrest of the accused sattar Maulana in pursuance of FIR registered in 1994. Second prayer is to quash and set aside report of Commission of Retired Justice S. D. Dave in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Third prayer is to direct respondent No. 1 " Union of India to take disciplinary action against the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, ignoring report of Justice S. D. Dave (Retd. ). Another prayer is to prosecute the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for the offences under Section 3 (4) of TADA. Thus, practically it is a service matter, and as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 , Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THIS petition was presented before this Court on 29th July, 2005. Advance copy of the petition was served upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader of State of Gujarat. Thereupon, a brief reply-affidavit dated 3rd March, 2006 was filed by Shri K. M. Bhavsar, Joint Secretary, Home Department, Gujarat State, raising several preliminary objections, one of that was that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition and that due to personal animosity with some of the respondents, the petition is filed. Thus, it is not a Public Interest Litigation, but purely a Private Interest Litigation. Other preliminary objections have also been raised in the reply. However, we are not inclined to deal with the same in view of the direct judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dattaraj s case (supra) against the petitioner, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that PILs in respect of service matters should not be entertained by High Courts. ( 4 ) IT may be stated that learned Senior Advocate Shri S. B. Vakil, appearing with learned Counsel Shri R. J. Oza for the petitioner, submitted that the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in Dattaraj s case (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. He, therefore, tried to take us to the merits of the case. He, therefore, tried to take us to the merits of the case. However, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dattaraj s (supra) case and, therefore, we have not allowed Shri Vakil to address us on the merits of the case for a long time. In fact, almost whole day of the Court is consumed in this matter with the arguments and this judgment. ( 5 ) IT may be stated that though the petition is filed by the petitioner as "public INTEREST LITIGATION", but it is a "private INTEREST LITIGATION. " From the averments made in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner was not prosecuting the matter but persecuting the matter, mainly against respondent Nos. 5 to 7, who are IPS officers of the State. From the bare look at the averments made in the petition, it clearly appears that though the petition is styled as a PIL, it is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes. Therefore, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dattaraj s case (supra), the petition should be thrown out only on this ground. In para-4 of Dattaraj s case (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed: ". . . . . Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important filed in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise interest litigation. . . . . . " We may add one more to this i. e. "power interest litigation. " ( 6 ) AS held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Dattaraj s case (supra), a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of the PIL will alone have locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. A bare look at the averments made in the petition and the prayers made in it clearly show that, with some oblique motive, the petition is filed by the petitioner as PIL. In fact, it is nothing but a Private Interest Litigation. A bare look at the averments made in the petition and the prayers made in it clearly show that, with some oblique motive, the petition is filed by the petitioner as PIL. In fact, it is nothing but a Private Interest Litigation. A writ petitioner, who comes to the Court for relief in public interest, must come not only with clean hands like any other petitioner, but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Ramjas Foundation Vs. Union of India, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 and K. R. Srinivas Vs. R. M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620 . This is not the case here. The petitioner has not approached the Court with a clean hand, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by this Court in favour of such person who tries to abuse the process of law. ( 7 ) pil means a legal action necessitated in the Court of Law for enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest, by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. None of the criteria is satisfied in this matter which is clear from the prayer clause of the petition. ( 8 ) IN para-10 of Dattaraj s case (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to the following observations made in Janata Dal Vs. H. S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 : "109. 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 consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. " In para-11 of Dattaraj s case (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed: "11. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. " In para-11 of Dattaraj s case (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed: "11. 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 unauthorized 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 litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. "In the instant case, almost whole First Sitting was wasted in hearing. Because of that, other genuine litigants have been made to suffer by adjourning their cases. "In the instant case, almost whole First Sitting was wasted in hearing. Because of that, other genuine litigants have been made to suffer by adjourning their cases. It is because of this, in the Second Sitting, we have to prevent the learned Counsel for the petitioner to address us on merits, as we are more than convinced that this was not a Public Interest Litigation but purely a Private Interest Litigation. In paragraph-12 of Dattaraj s case (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed: "12. 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 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 bona fide 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. " Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we have to be extremely careful that, under the guise of redressing the public grievance, we may not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. " Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we have to be extremely careful that, under the guise of redressing the public grievance, we may not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. In the instant case, it is clear that though the petitioner pretended to act in the name of pro bono publico, he had no public interest. In our considered opinion, no litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. It is no doubt true that there should be easy access to justice to one and all, but easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. Today, the trend is that the litigants rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under the attractive name of public interest. Unless they inspire confidence in Courts, their petitions should not be entertained. In para-16 of Dattaraj s case (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed: "16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, [ (1998) 7 SCC 273 ], this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. . . . . . The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. . . . . . " Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we must be careful to see that the person, who approaches this Court in cases of this type, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or other oblique consideration. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition as a Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, without going into any other question raised in the petition and without expressing any opinion on it, we dismiss this petition, as, in our considered opinion, this petition cannot be said to be a Public Interest Litigation, but it is purely a Private Interest Litigation to settle the scores with the respondents. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting, we must state that though the Hon ble Supreme Court decided Dattaraj s case (supra) on December 14, 2004 and in para-20, also cautioned the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations to maintain high traditions of the Bar, it seems that neither the Bar Council of India nor the Bar Associations have responded to it. Ignoring judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Dattaraj s case (supra), the present petition was filed by the petitioner, who was, at that point of time, the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association. He, being a Senior Advocate and President of the Bar at the relevant point of time when the petition was filed, should have refrained himself from filing such frivolous petition. But, it seems that he tried to take disadvantage of this and filed such petition to settle his personal scores against respondent Nos. 5 to 7, which is most unfortunate. ( 11 ) WHILE disposing of this petition we would have imposed exemplary cost, but keeping in mind that the Bombay High Court, in such type of case i. e. Dattaraj s case (supra), had awarded cost of only Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), therefore, we also award cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) of this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only ).