JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard Sri R.C. Mishra, learned Counsel for petitioner. 2. This Public Interest Litigation Petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘PIL’) has been filed by one Shailendra Singh, son of Late Sri Jagdish Singh, resident of 3 Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow seeking following reliefs : (1) Issue an appropriate and suitable writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari to quash the speech of the respondent No. 4 on budget 2007-2008 on page 12 as contained in Annexure II i.e. to declare the same is misappropriation of the public funds. (2) Issue an appropriate and suitable writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 for the enactment of laws on the matters for maintaining the standard of living, protection of life of people, improvement of public health and free treatment at the expenditures of the public funds under the control of respondents 1 and 4 in serious illness, physical disability and infirmity for good governance in public welfare, public interest, public administration and human development at the state. (3) Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 for making payment of Rs. 10,000,000 (ten lacs) to the respondent No. 3 for protection to life of the victim Umesh Kumar, son of one Sri Ram Prakash Verma as pointed out in this PIL petition suffering from a plastic anaemia for bone marrow transplantation and supportive care who is on death bed at the respondent No. 3. (4) Issue any other suitable writ or order or direction as deemed fit, proper and expedient essential in the interest of the causes, circumstances and matters of the PIL writ petition. 3. In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed anything about his own identity and whether he is a public spirited person or a busy body. Further the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the speech of respondent No. 4 on budget 2007-2008 contained in Annexure II i.e. to declare the same as mis-appropriation of public funds. The speech in Assembly constitutes proceedings before the house and despite our query, the learned Counsel for petitioner could not show us any law as to whether the same can be quashed in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The speech in Assembly constitutes proceedings before the house and despite our query, the learned Counsel for petitioner could not show us any law as to whether the same can be quashed in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The next relief sought by the petitioner is that mandamus be issued to the respondents No. 1 and 4 for enactment of laws on the matters for maintaining the standard of living, protection of life of people, improvement health and free treatment etc. We have again enquired from the learned Counsel for petitioner as to whether such a writ of mandamus or direction can be issued but he did not reply at all. The last relief relates to directing the respondents No. 1 and 4 for payment of Rs. Ten lac to protection to life of one Umesh Kumar, son of one Ram Prakash Verma who is said to be ill and suffering with plastic anaemia and needs the aforesaid money for bone marrow transplantation. The learned Counsel for petitioner in support of the aforesaid relief relied on Articles 375, 51 (i), 21, 37 and Preamble of the Constitution of India also relied on the authority of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 2178 but none of the aforesaid provisions, in our view entitles the petitioner to claim any amount from the State for treatment of any one as a matter of right. The person who is suffering with illness, if he is admitted in a hospital maintained by the Government, there are provisions under which free treatment is extended to such a needy and poor persons but nothing has been brought on record to show that the Government hospitals have refused to provide free treatment or the appropriate treatment to the individual concerned considering his financial status etc. In any case even, such a mandamus in our view cannot be issued. 4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to remind that a writ petition filed as PIL does not entitle a person to maintain it as a matter of right irrespective of any question of locus standi, cause of action, relevancy of the issue etc. Moreover a PIL is not a mode to settle personal scores. 4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to remind that a writ petition filed as PIL does not entitle a person to maintain it as a matter of right irrespective of any question of locus standi, cause of action, relevancy of the issue etc. Moreover a PIL is not a mode to settle personal scores. A Court has to be satisfied that the person who has filed writ petition as PIL has approached Court with bona fide interest and is looking after the grievances of public at large raising issues of public interest and it does not amount to abuse of process of law, or an ugly attempt to malign the State machinery for personal grouse as vendetta. The Court cannot allow it process to be abused by for oblique consideration by masked phantom, who monitor at times from behind. Some persons, with vested interest indulge in the pastsime of meddling with judicial process, either by force of habit or for improper motive. Sometimes they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The Apex Court has rightly cautioned by observing that writ petition of such busy body deserves to be thrown out by rejection at the thrash hold with exemplary costs. Recently in Neetu v. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (1) SCALE168, the Apex Court in para 4 and 5 has held as under : “The scope of entertaining petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him;(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. [See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, MANU/ SC/0648/1994 : (1995) I LLJ 622 (SC); (1994) 3 SCC 481 , and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, MANU/SC/0454/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 2151 : (1994) 80 Comp Cas 140 (SC); JT 1994 (1) SC 586 : 1994 (1) OLR (SC) 454 : 1994 (1) SCALE 565 : (1994) 2 SCC 647 : (1994) 1 SCR 857 : 1994 (1) UJ 351 (SC)]. 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. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, 1996 (7) JT 265 ]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public”. 5. The Apex Court has also cautioned that time has come to weed out petitions which though titled as PIL are in essence something else. It is really surprising that this Court is now flooded with large number of so called PILs. When even a miniscule percentage can legitimately be called as PILs. These kinds of so called PIL takes innumerable hours and days of the Courts wasting precious time of this Constitutional institution which otherwise could have been utilised for genuine and important matters. It is really surprising that this Court is now flooded with large number of so called PILs. When even a miniscule percentage can legitimately be called as PILs. These kinds of so called PIL takes innumerable hours and days of the Courts wasting precious time of this Constitutional institution which otherwise could have been utilised for genuine and important matters. We have to reiterate at this stage that we are aware of the laudable concept of PIL and have no hesitation in extending our long arms of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental or legal rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard, but we find that in the garb of PIL, the persons who are otherwise not entitled to come to this Court, in the form of PIL are actually the beneficiary instead of genuine one. PIL 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. The attractive brand name of should not be allowed to be used for suspicious product of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public-injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. 6. In Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 SC 1923 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the PIL found it to be a vexatious litigation observed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/. However, it imposed the cost of Rs. 10,000 upon the petitioner directing him to deposit the same in the Registry of the Court within six weeks failing which the said amount is to be recovered by coercive means of recovery from the petitioner. 7. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 540 , the Hon’ble Apex Court deprecating filing of such vexatious petition under the title Public Interest Litigation observed that the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. 8. 7. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 540 , the Hon’ble Apex Court deprecating filing of such vexatious petition under the title Public Interest Litigation observed that the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. 8. In our view, the present petition filed in the garb of PIL is thoroughly misconceived, having been filed with oblique motive, therefore deserves to be dismissed with costs. 9. Accordingly the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar of this Court within a period of two weeks, failing which Registrar would take steps for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue. After realising the said amount, 50% thereof shall be deposited with the Legal Aid Society of the High Court and 50% with the Mediation Centre. ————