Judgment T.S.Thakur, J. 1. Aggrieved by the empanelment of respondent No. 5 for a possible appointment of the post of Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh, the petitioner, who happens to be an Advocate. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, including the petitioner in person and being of the opinion that the petition is an abuse of process of law, we had no 26.8.2008 passed the following order :- "For reasons that we shall separately record, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The costs shall be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund." 2. We now proceed to record our reasons for the above order:- The post of Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh is required to be filled up from amongst IAS Officers borne on the cadre of State of Haryana. The Government of India appears to have sent a request to the Government of Haryana to forward a panel of four IAS Officers for consideration of their names for appointment against the said post. In the panel drawn up by the Government of Haryana, the name of respondent No. 5 was also included apart from three others found eligible for such consideration and appointment. Before, however, an appointment could be made by the competent authority from out of the said panel, the present petition was filed allegedly in public interest seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint respondent No. 5 to the post of Home Secretary as the said respondent was involved in what was described as "various scams" and had been found guilty in a Vigilance enquiry. A further direction requiring respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint any other officer from the panel was also prayed for with a direction that the al leged scams be got investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation: 3. In response to a notice of motion issued by this Court, the Government of Haryana filed a counter affidavit in which not only were the bona fide of the petitioner and the maintainability of the writ petition assailed but a specific assertion was made that no vigilance enquiry was pending against respondent No. 5 that could disqualify him from consideration for appointment as Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh. The counter affidavit also explained the circumstances pointed out in the writ petition and asserted that there was no basis for the petitioner to either demand a CBI enquiry nor was there any basis for the allegation that respondent No. 5 did not deserve consideration for appointment as Home Secretary. The circumstances, in which certain allegations relating to the validity of mining leased in District Bhiwani were made were also explained in the counter affidavit and a specific assertion made that there was no irregularity in the conduct of auction of the said lease by the Auction Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani. The auction had been conducted after wide publicity was given to the same in national level newspapers. That apart, the entire auction proceedings were video graphed by the Auction Committee. Suffice it to say that the counter affidavit filed by the Government fully supported the empanelment of respondent No. 5 and sought the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued by Mr. Joshi that the petitioner was a public spirited person, who had gathered information from the newspapers that the name of respondent No. 5 had been recommended for appointment as Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration, at Chandigarh. It was further argued that this, recommendation was unjustified having regard to the numerous allegations of corruption against the said respondent, which the Haryana Vigilance Department had ignored while including his name in the panel of eligible officers. It was submitted that an officer, who was involved in corrupt practice should not be allowed to be appointed as Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh and the Court ought to interfere in public interest to prevent any such appointment. 5. On behalf of the respondents, it was on the other hand, contended by Mr. AshokAggarwal, Senior Advocate, Mr. R.K. Chugh, Advocate and Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana that the writ petition had been filed at the instance of other officers included in the panel and was, therefore, mala fide in nature. It was also contended that there was no enquiry pending against respondent No. 5 before the Vigilance Department or any other authority that could render him ineligible for empanelment. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana that the writ petition had been filed at the instance of other officers included in the panel and was, therefore, mala fide in nature. It was also contended that there was no enquiry pending against respondent No. 5 before the Vigilance Department or any other authority that could render him ineligible for empanelment. The scope of judicial intervention by a Writ Court exercising jurisdiction in public interest was, according to learned counsel, limited especially in service matters where the aggrieved person can himself approach the Court for redressal of his grievances. 6. The legal position regarding scope of interference in public interest jurisdiction of the Court has been the subject matter of a long line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. In Forward Construction Co. vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), 1986(1) SCC 100, the Supreme Court observed that a public interest litigation is intended to prosecute and vindicate public interest which demands that violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of people, who are poor, ignorant or socially and economically in disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed, unfedressed for the would be destructive of the rule of law. Rule of law declared.the Court did not mean protection to a fortunate few only. The poor too have a civil and political right. 7. In Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892, their Lordships reiterated the above position and held that on.ly a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in proceedings had the locus standi to approach the Court for the sake of poor and the needy suffering violation of their fundamental rights. The Court observed :- "However, 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 for the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights. But a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration has no locus standi. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. But a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration has no locus standi. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. The could should not allow its process to be abused by mere busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, way farers or officious in terveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either for themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity. But this does not mean there is any retreating or recoiling from the earlier views expressed by the Supreme Court about the philosophy of public interest litigation." 8. To the same effect are the observations made by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., AIR 2004 SC 280, where their Lordships emphasized the need for a petitioner, who come to the Court in public interest doing so with clean hand, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective, The Court observed :- "A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and inappropriate cases, with exemplary costs." 9. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1774, the Court while reiterating the principle of law stated in the earlier decisions held that the petitions that were filed by persons acting at the behest of others deserved to be weeded out and dismissed with exemplary costs. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- in that case and observed as under ;- "The applicant has abused the process of law and deserves to be sternly dealt with. Enormous judicial time has been wasted which could have been used for deciding other cases. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- in that case and observed as under ;- "The applicant has abused the process of law and deserves to be sternly dealt with. Enormous judicial time has been wasted which could have been used for deciding other cases. It has also resulted in CEC and other incurring, huge expenses and their wastage of time as well. In this view costs are quantified at one lakh payable by the applicant Deepak Agarwal to CEC, The Costs, it not deposited with CEC within four weeks, shall be executable as a decree. The amount of costs shall be ulitized for preservation of forests in the State of Chhattisgarh," 10. In Seema Dhamdhere, Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008(2) Supreme Court Cases 290, the writ petition filed in public interest challenged the transfer of an Investigating Officer looking into alleged irregularities committed by Public Service Commission. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2005(5) SCC 136. Dismissing the appeal preferred against the decision of the High Court, their Lordships held as under- "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, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra 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. 11. The Court also noticed an interesting phenomena of official documents being produced in Public Interest Litigation without the petitioner indicating as to how he had come to possess the same. The following observations in this regard are apposite :- "The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. The following observations in this regard are apposite :- "The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he-found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplaly costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts." 12. It is unnecessary for us to burden this order with any further decisions dealing with the scope of PILs before a writ Court dealing with petitions filed in public interest. We may only refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India, 2002(2) SCC 333, where their Lordships have summed up the parameters for interference in public interest in following words:- "77. Public Interest Litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the Court so as to secure justice for the poof and the weaker sections of the community who were not in aposition to protect their own interests. Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., litigation in the interest of the public. 78. Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., litigation in the interest of the public. 78. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarised the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in following words :- "PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following parameters These are not exclusive but merely descriptive : Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates). Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country- adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes). Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums). Where administrative decision related to development are harmful to the resources such as air or water". 13 Coming now to the facts of the instant case, the petitioner does not appear to have any real interest in the subject matter nor is there any explanation forthcoming from him as to how empanelment of an Officer for consideration by the Government of India in connection witn appointment as Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh is, in any way. violative of his rights and rights of any other socially disadvantaged sections of the Society. It is not as though the petitioner is a recognized crusader against corruption in public administration. As to how he had suddenly felt concerned about a possible appointment of a person alleged to be tainted to the important position of Home Secretary in Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh has not been explained either in the writ petition or in the course of arguments before us. The contention on the behest of other panelists cannot, therefore, be brushed aside lightly. This is especially so when the petitioner has not offered any plausible explanation as to how he came in possession of official documents to which he had made reference in the writ petition. The contention on the behest of other panelists cannot, therefore, be brushed aside lightly. This is especially so when the petitioner has not offered any plausible explanation as to how he came in possession of official documents to which he had made reference in the writ petition. All that was argued was that some Journalist had passed on these documents to him in the course of some seminar at Chandigarh. As to who was the Journalist and who organised the said seminar and on what subject was the seminar organised remain obscure. Super added to all these facts is that respondents have denied the involvement of respondent No. 5 in any scam as alleged by the petitioner. The report upon which the petitioner had places reliance in support of his version regarding the involvement of respondent No. 5 was set aside by the Director General, State Vigilance Bureau. Haryana, with the following observations :- "Thus in my considered view nothing has come out during the course of our enquiry into auction of Dadam quarry Distt. Bhiwani which may attribute criminality or criminal, misconduct to the conduct of either the members of Auction Committee or Sh. Ram Niwas, IAS then Director, Mines & Geology. So that there is nothing on record which warrants reversal of earlier Vigilance clearance accorded in favour of Sh. Ram Niwas, IAS." 14. In the totality of above circumstances, therefore, and in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the empanelment of respondent No. 5 for consideration and appointment as Home Secretary in the Union Territory Administration at Chandigarh, there is indeed no room for interference by this Court in public interest. The petition shall stand dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- as already ordered on 26.08.2008. Petition dismissed