JUDGMENT : A.K. Ganguly, C.J. - This Writ Petition was heard and Judgment was rendered by this Court on 7.12.2007 whereby the Writ Petition was allowed to the extent that the notification dated 28.2.2006 was set aside by this Court for the reasons disclosed in the said Writ Petition. The said Judgment was, however, delivered when nobody appeared for the State and no counter affidavit was filed. The Writ Petition was heard on the basis of averments in the Writ Petition and on the basis of some representation by Opposite Party No. 2-Orissa Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd, who are merely collecting agents. 2. After the Writ Petition was heard and Judgment was delivered several review petitions were filed, one of them was by one Kartik Chandra Mahakud, who was not a party to the Writ Petition. On such review petitions being filed, this Court, for the reasons, stated in the Order Dated 18.1.2008, in Review Petition No. 1 of 2008, held that the matter should be re-heard and the Judgment dated 7.12.2007 was recalled. 3. Thus Review Petition No. 1 of 2008 was disposed of and in view of that order no further order was passed on the review petitions filed by Orissa Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd., being Review Petition No. 2/08 and by State of Orissa being Review Petition No. 5/08. The Writ Petition was thereafter re-heard. 4. When the matter was heard once again, Learned Counsel for the State has taken an objection that the Writ Petition which is filed as a PIL is not maintainable. The Learned Counsel for the State contended that the Writ Petition has been filed by five Petitioners. Of them, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 are associations and there is no averment in the Writ Petition whether Petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 are registered associations. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are private individuals. In answer to the said objection, in the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that Balasore Transport Coordination Committee-Writ Petitioner No. 1 is a registered society, but it has not been stated whether the lorry association-Writ Petitioner No. 5 is a registered society or not. It was submitted that this Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the Petitioners for protecting their commercial and business interest and for that no Public Interest Litigation can be filed. 5. It was submitted that this Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the Petitioners for protecting their commercial and business interest and for that no Public Interest Litigation can be filed. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits by referring to paragraph 14.0 of the Writ Petition that if enhanced toll is imposed on the heavy commercial vehicles with multi-axle that will indirectly affect the members of the public inasmuch as the price of the goods will go up. This Court is not impressed by the aforesaid argument. If this principle is accepted, in that case any imposition of tax by the Government either by way of commercial tax or income tax or in indirect form of taxation can be challenged by filing PIL. While filing PIL it has to be shown that the poorer Section of the people have a direct grievance against the impugned cause of action. In the instance case, it cannot be said that the poorer and deprived Sections of the public have any direct grievance for the hiking of tolls on heavy commercial vehicles with multi-axle. 6. In order to appreciate this objection one has to see what is the main challenge in the Writ Petition. The main challenge is to the notification dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure-7) which was quashed in the previous Judgment. 7. From a perusal of the said notification it will appear that only in respect of heavy Commercial vehicles with multi axle the toll has been enhanced substantially. In so far as the other vehicles are concerned there has not been any enhancement or the enhancement was very negligible. So far as motor cycles, scooters and other two wheelers are concerned toll tax has been exempted. For car, jeep and van the toll is fixed at Rs. 10/- for one way and for both ways it is fixed Rs. 15/-. 8. Relying on the said notification Learned Counsel for the State submits that the general members of public have no reason to feel aggrieved by the aforesaid rates. The only grievance which can be raised is in respect of the heavy commercial vehicles having multi-axle. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that in any event it is the commercial interest of those persons which is sought to be canvassed on the basis of this Public Interest Litigation. 9. The only grievance which can be raised is in respect of the heavy commercial vehicles having multi-axle. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that in any event it is the commercial interest of those persons which is sought to be canvassed on the basis of this Public Interest Litigation. 9. Relying on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and Anr. v. C.K. Rajan and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 561 , the Learned Counsel for State submitted that the Learned Judges of the Supreme Court, after making an analysis of various decisions rendered in Public Interest Litigation have formulated certain principles in paragraph 50 at page 572 of the report. In paragraph 41 at page 571 of the report the Learned Judges explained the scope of PIL and held that Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation was evolved with a view to rendering complete justice to the poorest of the poor, deprived, the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children and other handicapped Section of society, who by ignorance, indigence and illiteracy and other reasons do not have any access to justice or have been denied justice. The Learned Judges also held that the Courts evolved a jurisprudence of compassion. That is why the procedural propriety and rule of locus standi have been diluted and the Court in place of being a disinterested and dispassionate adjudicator becomes an active participant in the dispensation of justice. But the Court noted in paragraph 46 at page 572 of the report that with the passage of time, things started taking different shapes and the process which was evolved to help the poor was being abuse and many proceedings were improperly initiated in the name of Public Interest Litigation which should not have been done. Therefore, the Court wanted to lay down the guidelines in paragraph 50. While laying down the guidelines in sub-para (ix) of para 50, the Learned Judges quoted a passage from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others. Therefore, the Court wanted to lay down the guidelines in paragraph 50. While laying down the guidelines in sub-para (ix) of para 50, the Learned Judges quoted a passage from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others. In the said passage at paragraph 109 in the case of Janata Dal, the following principles have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are quoted below: 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 for 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. 10. It is obvious going by the aforesaid well-known propositions which have been laid down by the Supreme Court, the instant petition as a PIL cannot be maintained. It is clear from the impugned notification at Annexure-7 which is subject matter of challenge that by the said enhancement of toll only interested persons who are running the heavy commercial vehicles may have a grievance and the two Writ Petitioners, namely, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 both are representing the Transport Coordination Committee and Lorry Association. Assuming that they are registered societies, they represent the commercial interest of those who are running heavy commercial vehicles and those who are running the transport business. So it is their commercial and business interest which is sought to be canvassed through PIL. PIL is not meant to serve such ends. This aspect was not brought to the notice of this Court when it passed the Judgment dated 7.12.2007 which however was recalled subsequently on different grounds. But now this has been brought to the notice of the Court by the State in its counter affidavit and to that objection of the State virtually there has been no answer by the Petitioner and in fact there can hardly be any answer. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court dismisses this Writ Petition flied as PIL. But now this has been brought to the notice of the Court by the State in its counter affidavit and to that objection of the State virtually there has been no answer by the Petitioner and in fact there can hardly be any answer. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court dismisses this Writ Petition flied as PIL. This Court, however, holds that if the impugned notification relating to enhancement of toll tax on heavy commercial vehicles with multi-axle is challenged by the affected persons not by way of PIL but by way of ordinary Writ Petition, the said challenge may be considered by the appropriate Bench. This Court does not make any observation on the merits of such challenge. But the Court merely holds that for canvassing purely the commercial interest of heavy vehicle owners, this PIL is not maintainable. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed