Judgment 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We have examined the factual profile, as well as, the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. 2. The main relief sought in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been that the respondent no. 2, the Chief Minister of Bihar, should be prevented from hearing grievances of the citizens on the spot, popularly, known as "Janta Darbar" on the premise that it is nothing but a show of Feudalism, Kingship, Zamindari, Nawabshahi and thus unbecoming of the democratic culture. 3. It is in these context, a relief is sought that respondent no. 2 should be restrained from holding such "Darbars", wherein, grievances of individual citizen are addressed and redressed. 4. Nothing has been, however, successfully shown as to how this administrative policy action of holding "Darbars for redressal of the public grievances by respondent no. 2 could be said to be illegal, invalid and impermissible under the law including the highest law of the land and/or the Constitution. We have, also, taken into consideration the celebrated parameters of entertainment of a Public Interest Litigation, which has avowed design and pronounced purpose to ameliorate the grievances of poor who are unable to find access to the traditional system of the Court of law. None of the aforesaid parameters is shown to have been infringed and/or breached by holding "Janta Darbar" by the respondent no. 2, the Chief Minister of Bihar. 5. Let it be mentioned that the Public Interest Litigation, being the potent weapon in the armory of justice dispensation, should not be used for personal, political or professional advancement and it has to be considered only and only in the larger interest of the public and public good and public policy. 6. In our opinion, the present case is nothing but an abuse of process of Public Interest Litigation, which is a pious measure for redressal of grievances of poor people, who find system otherwise inaccessible or unaffordable. It is in these context, we are left with no alternative but to dismiss this petition as it cannot be treated and styled as a Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, the petition shall stand dismissed at the threshold. Rule is discharged. No cost.