N.A. Kakru, J. 1. The petition on hand represents a unique litigation of its kind, for, seldom one may come across a Public Interest Litigation (for short PIL), filed by a father (PIL mover for short), espousing the cause of none other than his real son, seeking indulgence of the Court to compel the State and its functionaries, to adhere to a particular qualification for selection of a lecturer, in the discipline of Pediatrics in SKIMS Srinagar, suppressing the fact that a similar controversy had already become subject of matter of writ petition (SWP 744 of 2008) titled Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others, petitioner wherein is his son. Facts so narrated are not only orally brought to our notice but are borne out by the record of the writ petition filed by Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani (Dr. petitioner hereinafter), perhaps that is why, the PIL mover when asked, whether he was aware of any other sub judice writ petition involving similar cause, suddenly and unexpectedly shouted: "My personal cases have been decided against me by Honble Justice Kakru and he has also declined to hear some of my cases, therefore he should not hear my petition 2. A glance at statement of the petitioner discerns two objections, one that Kakru-J has decided PIL movers cases against him, therefore, should not hear this PIL, the other, refusal to hear his cases. Notwithstanding the fact that these objections were within the knowledge of the petitioner on 10-2-2009 but were not raised. Be that as it may, since objections are raised, these have to be addressed to and first and foremost, we would like to deal with the latter one. Objection necessitates unfolding of the narrative which forms basis of the direction for listing of the case before the other bench. The petitioner in the capacity of an employee of a College, faced disciplinary proceedings, resulting in unfavourable action against him which he questioned in this Court through several petitions, filed in quick succession against the authorities of the College. A few of his matters were listed on 11.8.2005 before Kakru J which received consideration one by one by following order: "CMP 2767/01 AbduI Gani Bhat Vs. Islamia College & Ors. A few of his matters were listed on 11.8.2005 before Kakru J which received consideration one by one by following order: "CMP 2767/01 AbduI Gani Bhat Vs. Islamia College & Ors. By medium of this application, petitioner seeks deletion of respondents 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 as also action against respondent No.2 for allegedly having filed a false statement of facts on affidavit. In so far as prayer for deletion of respondents aforementioned goes, that stands already allowed and to appreciate the second prayer, judgment passed in contempt 435/01 assumes significance. Its perusal reveals that pleadings of the parties in the contempt petition, out of which this CMP arises, were duly appreciated by the court and the matter was adjudicated upon on the basis of rival contentions of the parties which included the statement of facts. That being so, any further observation about the statement of facts, may amount to rewriting of the judgment which is not possible in the given facts and circumstances of the case, resultantly the application fails and is dismissed. CMP 1023/03: In this application, petitioner has registered grouse against the Registrar Judicial. Suffice it to say that the allegations do not call for any examination on the judicial side. As regards prayer for interpretation of sections 195/476 Cr.P.C., the provisions admit no ambiguity and no clarification is called for in the facts and circumstances detailed in the application. Dismissed. CMP 2772/02: By medium of this CMP, release of pay/pension/gratuity with interest is sought with further prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. Dealing with the contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the orders passed by the court from time to time which has the effect of release of Rs. 8,34,999.00 in favour of the petitioner. That being so, no further relief is possible. CMP is dismissed. CMP 2674/01 : When this application was taken up for consideration, the petitioner submitted that the case be adjourned to enable him to engage an Advocate. Prayer is allowed. Be listed after one week. At this stage petitioner made further submission that he would like to try his luck before some other bench. Since submission is made with humility, therefore, I deem it appropriate to concede to the request, of course, subject to the orders in this behalf by Lord Chief Justice." Emphasis added by us. 3. Be listed after one week. At this stage petitioner made further submission that he would like to try his luck before some other bench. Since submission is made with humility, therefore, I deem it appropriate to concede to the request, of course, subject to the orders in this behalf by Lord Chief Justice." Emphasis added by us. 3. Order passed in CMP 2672/01 speaks for itself that petitioners three matters were dismissed in a row and when 4th was taken up, he sought time to be represented by an Advocate, submitting further that he would try his luck before some other bench. The request was accepted but acceptance of the request was subject to the orders of the Chief Justice which came but to the contrary, directing listing of the case as per roster, consequently petitioners cases have been coming up before Kakru J also wherein petitioner has been appearing in person. Apart from that it is not a service matter relating to the petitioner, obviously declining to hear his matter has no relevance to the PIL. Examining from any angle objection is bereft of substance, apparently a mere pretext to avoid this bench. 4. This brings us to the first part of the direction dated 10-02-2009 reproduced hereunder: "...To ascertain the bona fides of the petitioner, one of the essentials of the Public Interest Litigation, petitioner is directed to produce documentary proof to substantiate registration of the society along with constitution, bye laws and other relevant documents." Direction aforementioned required PIL mover to establish his bona fides by production of documentary proof of registration of the society, constitution and bye laws but he failed to. When told that in PIL it is the bounden duty of the PIL mover, to satisfy the Court, that he is acting bona fide, has filed the petition to advance the cause of public and not for any oblique consideration or personal gain, satisfaction whereof is possible only by examination of the documents mentioned in the above said direction, petitioner shouted at the top of his voice: "As a citizen I have every right to file a PIL" and went on to say "I am taken ill". 5. Crux of the objection unfolds failure of the petitioner to prove his bona fides. Responding to the statement of the PIL mover, Mr. 5. Crux of the objection unfolds failure of the petitioner to prove his bona fides. Responding to the statement of the PIL mover, Mr. Magray submitted that it is not the first occasion when PIL mover has behaved in this fashion but it is his usual practice. He submitted that in so many cases several benches of this court have recorded displeasure against his conduct and could readily furnish particulars of a few Letters Patent Appeals, decided by different Division Benches of this court, besides, a decision by a single bench, observations whereof reflecting on petitioners conduct are extracted hereunder: "(LPA No: 200/2005) Abdul Gani Bhat Versus Chairman Islamia College & anr. decided on 21.11.2005. ".......petitioner is personally appearing in the cases and is engaging the court in the submissions....... not relevant to the merits of the case. ........Mr. Shah is required to take up his case(s) and his fee will be paid out of the legal aid funds. Because of the engagement of the counsel for the appellant he would not be heard in person by any court to save the court time. This appeal is dismissed. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the appellant to be handed over to Mr. Z.A. shah, Advocate." (LPA: 200/2005) Abdul Gani Bhat Vs. Chairman Islamia College & another decided on 12-09-2006. "Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. While doing so, we wish to record that appellants conduct in the Courts and his habit of creating scenes in the name of seeking justice either on non-issues or some of his misconceived grievances unsupported by any legal basis has become a permanent burden on the Court and public time. It is surprising that in spite of having been provided the services of senior counsel by this Court in legal aid, he has again and again insisted on reading his petitions and memos of appeal and using the audience given only for giving vent to his personal feelings against not only the respondent college management but also the Judges of this Court. Accordingly, as a measure of conveying our disapproval of his misplaced litigative zeal, we impose symbolic costs of Rs. 500 on him which shall be recoverable from any of the dues which may be payable to him by the management of respondent-College. Accordingly, as a measure of conveying our disapproval of his misplaced litigative zeal, we impose symbolic costs of Rs. 500 on him which shall be recoverable from any of the dues which may be payable to him by the management of respondent-College. The matter stand accordingly disposed of." LPA No: 108/2002 Abdul Gani Bhat Vs., Chairman Islamia College and anr. decided on 01.08.2002. "It appears that the petitioner with a view to continue in service and to pressurize the college authorities and under the garb of litigative thrust has filed the, frivolous litigation to see that no young person be appointed against the post which has fallen vacant on his superannuation. This appeal is not only required to be rejected but it is required to be said that the appeal is filed with an intention to see that the college remains under pressure under litigative thrust. For the above reasons, he appeal being merit less is accordingly dismissed with costs. The appellant is directed to pay the cost of Rs. 1000/-" (LPA No: 124/2004) Abdul Gani Bhat Versus Chairman Islamia College and anr. decided on 27.9.2004 "...............Being satisfied about the frivolous nature of writ petition and this appeal, we are of the view that mere dismissal of appeal would not be adequate and the appellant should be saddled with costs. Accordingly appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/- payable to the State within a month failing which the money may be recovered as arrears of land revenue." CMP NO: 2144/2004 in Cont. No: 26/2003 Abdul Gani Bhat Versus B.K. Koul and ors. decided on 25.5.2006 The single bench observed as under: "Prosecution of the respondent, Principal Islamia College Srinagar and his counsel is sought by the petitioner....... In the averment reproduced hereinabove the petitioner has specifically pleaded that his signature has been forged which is not a fact. No: 26/2003 Abdul Gani Bhat Versus B.K. Koul and ors. decided on 25.5.2006 The single bench observed as under: "Prosecution of the respondent, Principal Islamia College Srinagar and his counsel is sought by the petitioner....... In the averment reproduced hereinabove the petitioner has specifically pleaded that his signature has been forged which is not a fact. Conversely, it is discernible at a glance that the endorsement is not signed by anybody making it abundantly clear that the averment attributing forgery to the Principal and his counsel is devoid of substance, giving a cause to proceed against the petitioner but being alive to the fact that the proceedings so contemplated are likely to take years together to reach the finality, coupled with fact that he may have to spend considerable part of his retired life in the Court, the ends of justice would be met by taking a lenient view. In this backdrop, I choose not to proceed against him. Needless to say that repetition of similar act/event on the part of the petitioner shall be at his own peril."(Emphasis supplied by us) 6. Relying on the judgments supra Mr. Magray submitted that despite a definite finding that the PIL mover is habitual of creating scenes of indiscipline before all the benches of this court to secure the desired orders, yet he has gone unpunished as on date, consequently embolden and if the bench succumbs to his browbeating and concedes to the objection raised against adjudication by this bench, the very foundation of the judicial system may get shaken. 7. In opposition to the objection to the adjudication by this bench, Mr. Mushtaq learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Medical Council of India referred to the second part of the direction of the Court dated 10.2.2009 which reads: "Mr. Mushtaq submits that the petition titled Dr. Himayon v. State of J&K & others which is scheduled to come up during the course of the current week and some other petitions are sufficient to debase the bona fides urged by the petitioner, therefore, seeks listing of the said writ petitions along" 8. Contention of Mr. Mushtaq is that listing of (SWP No.744 of 2008) Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others along with PIL on hand, was sought by him with an objective to unveil the purpose that is crying behind the PIL. Contention of Mr. Mushtaq is that listing of (SWP No.744 of 2008) Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others along with PIL on hand, was sought by him with an objective to unveil the purpose that is crying behind the PIL. In this behalf he referred to the special power of attorney executed by writ petitioner Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani (Dr. Petitioner hereinafter) favouring his father which forms part of his writ petition, relevant excerpt whereof reads; "..... I Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani ....do hereby appoint, nominate and constitute my father, Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat S/O Late Mohammad Ramzan Bhvt R/O Pomposh Lane, Natipora and authorize him to sign and file cases, appeals, CMPs, Review petitions, etc. pay fees and receive moneys attend and argue the cases before the court/courts of law and appoint vakails if he so chooses, and do all other acts connected therewith so as to bring them to logical conclusions. And I do hereby ratify and confirm that the aforesaid acts and deeds of my attorney shall be treated as if done by me...." 9. The special power of attorney having received consideration from the writ court, consequently the following order: "By the instant application. Professor Abdul Gani Bhat has sought permission to contest the matter on behalf of his son Dr. Himayon (Petitioner). Since the proper special power of attorney has been executed in his favour by the petitioner which is annexed with this petition, hence permitted. CMP disposed of" 10. It emerges from perusal of the contents of the power of attorney and order of the writ court that Dr. petitioner is son of the PIL mover and father PIL mover is prosecuting his sons writ petition in the capacity of his recognized agent on the basis of a power of attorney and both the writ petitions centre around the similar controversy but there is absolutely no mention of these facts in the PIL, making it clear that petitioner has approached the court with unclean hands, yet he questions adjudication of the PIL by this bench because one of us has decided cases against him. A situation, law takes care of, by making the orders of a judge capable of correction by appropriate remedies like appeals etc. There are some additional reasons also. A situation, law takes care of, by making the orders of a judge capable of correction by appropriate remedies like appeals etc. There are some additional reasons also. If the yard stick so suggested by the PIL mover is applied, only those judges can deal with his cases who have never decided cases against him, obviously, members of four different Division Benches cannot hear his cases because their judicial pronouncements have not favoured the petitioner. Apparently an attempt to confront the Court with a chaotic situation which needs to be understood in the light of observations made by the Division Bench in the judgments supra, depicting institution of frivolous writ petitions by the petitioner, for collateral purposes, to wreck vengeance, in particular to pressurize his employer to bring him to his own terms, consequently dismissed. Costs were also imposed on him, perhaps hoping to deter him from killing time of the court by playing to the gallery but in vain, which fact is manifest from non availing of services by the petitioner of a senior Advocate in the person of Shri Z.A. Shah engaged by the Division Bench in his cases vide order dated 21.11.2005 and instead opting for self-arguing, He has now obtained a special power of attorney, a device innovated by him for his appearance before the Court to conduct the cases, instance being Writ Petition (SWP 744 of 2008) Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K and has also filed a PIL for settlement of a service dispute of his son in absence of persons woo will be affected by order of the Court, a practice which needs to be understood in the light of finding of the Division Bench that he has been using Court rooms and the audience for giving vent to his personal feelings against the Judges of this Court. That is not the end of it, there is something more alarming that is adjudgement of the petitioner as a burden upon the public time. We have also seen order dated 22.5.08 in SWP 744/2008 revealing that petitioner had appeared to address the Court by dint of a special power of attorney but court refused to hear the matter and directed its listing before some other bench. We have also seen order dated 22.5.08 in SWP 744/2008 revealing that petitioner had appeared to address the Court by dint of a special power of attorney but court refused to hear the matter and directed its listing before some other bench. A similar attempt was made before us, resorting to reckless shouting to prompt us to follow the suit but we refused to fall prey in the interest of judicial system and dignity of the court, more particularly for the reason that some one has to bell the cat. 11. Having turned down the objection to the adjudication of the lis by this bench, we would now like to examine the question of maintainability of the PIL and to begin with reference to the cause urged by Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani becomes imperative who has challenged the selection of lecturer in Pediatrics through his writ petition filed on 16.5.2008 on the ground that as per norms prescribed by Medical Council of India, he alone was eligible for selection. During currency of the said petition, SKIMS an institute funded by the State also advertised the post of lecturer pediatrics, prescribing similar qualification which stands questioned by father of the Dr. petitioner through PIL in spite of the fact that he is fully aware about the institution of the writ petition filed by his son as is evidenced by special power of attorney executed in his favour forming part of the record of the writ petition of the Dr. petitioner wherein affidavit on behalf of Dr. petitioner has also been filed by PIL mover and he is also signatory of the writ petition and other miscellaneous petitions. He had performed all the formalities on behalf of his son but failed to persuade the court to stay the selection of lecturer in Pediatrics, therefore PIL to compel the respondents to adhere to a particular qualification relating to the selection and appointment of lecturer in Pediatrics. Amazingly father opted to be the petitioner in the PIL also, notwithstanding the fact that he has been representing his son as his recognized agent from day one. Amazingly father opted to be the petitioner in the PIL also, notwithstanding the fact that he has been representing his son as his recognized agent from day one. Although second petition filed in respect of similar cause finds its way to the Court under brand name of public interest litigation but essentially both are aimed at quashing of selection and appointment to pave way for the appointment of one person that is son of the PIL mover whose appearance in the interview before the selection committee of SKIMS for the post of lecturer Pediatrics, is established by communication bearing No.SKIMS-MC-Adm-09/253 dated 12-02-2009 produced by Mr. Magray which is taken record, thus a litigation for settlement of a service dispute, yet a PIL by father of the candidate which as per guidelines framed by the apex court cannot be a subject matter of a PIL, therefore liable to be thrown out, contended Mr. Mushtaq learned counsel for the MCI. Argument was substantiated by Mr. Magray by reference to the observations of the apex Court in the following cases: - S.P. Gupta v. President of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) "23. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fides and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and other to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. Andre Rabie has warned that "political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process" and we might add, through the political process, "may try to use the Courts to further their aims. "These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the Court has to be careful to avoid. It is also necessary for the court to bear in mind that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The Court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the Executive and the Legislature by the Constitution. The Court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the Executive and the Legislature by the Constitution. It a fascinating exercise for the Court to deal with public interest litigation because it is a new jurisprudence which the court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines which will change the complexion of the law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future are beginning to be born." "The Janata Dal v. H.S Chowdhary (AIR 1993 SC 892) "108. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Court, innumerable days are wasted which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigant. Though we are second to none in fostering and developing the newly invented concept of PIL and extending longer 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 gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life-imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from the undue delay in service matters, Government or private persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the 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, the busy bodies meddle some interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners 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 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 Court never moves which piquant situation creates a frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system." "Duryodhan Sahu. Dr. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra" (AIR 1999 S. C. 114)" "18 In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an application has to be made and the same can be made only by a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. ....................If public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the Tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get defeated. 21. In the result, we answer the first question in the negative and hold that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of a total stranger." "Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2005 SC 540) 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 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 large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitons and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could he other/vise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitons and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could he other/vise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (AIR 1999 SC 114), 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. ................... 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." "Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 136, at page 141 12. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to: be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other ma la fide object. Since in service matters public interest litigation cannot be filed there is no scope for taking action for contempt, particularly, when the petition is itself not maintainable. In any event, by order dated 15-4-2002 this Court had stayed operation of the High Courts order. 13. Judged in the above said background the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. The judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is therefore set aside. 14. The appeals are allowed with no orders as to costs." 12. Going by the principle laid down in the judgments supra jurisdiction of the High Court in the garb of public interest litigation cannot be invoked by an individual for redressal of his personal grievances much less in a service matter. As a corollary the PIL is dismissed along with CMPs with costs. 13. To arrive at a just conclusion in respect of quantum of costs, a few events need to be noticed. As a corollary the PIL is dismissed along with CMPs with costs. 13. To arrive at a just conclusion in respect of quantum of costs, a few events need to be noticed. PIL has been filed by the petitioner to further his personal cause, to achieve an oblique motive and not to vindicate any public interest. There is a definite finding by the Division bench that he has been wasting valuable judicial time of the court at the cost of genuine causes. In the instant so-called public interest petition the petitioner has engaged the Division Bench on several occasions and has consumed considerable time of the court giving vent to his grievances against the court, arising out of judgments passed against him by different benches in his personal service matters. The respondent SKIMS, a prestigious medical institution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has on affidavit averred harassment of the functionaries of the Institute on the part of the PIL mover to compel them to succumb to his pressure, apparently aimed at the selection of his son which averment has not been rebutted. The PIL mover has misconstrued the latitude shown by the Court by allowing him to go unburdened with costs in several matters, consequently inflow of frivolous litigations by him. On an overall consideration, imposition of costs to the tune of rupees one lac, as prayed for by learned counsel for the other side, is justified but regard being had to the fact that the PIL mover has crossed 65 years age, we opt for a lenient view, accordingly costs are quantified at rupees 20,000/- payable to the SKIMS-respondent through its Director to be spent for medication of patients belonging to the category of below poverty line. Costs so imposed shall be deposited by the writ petitioner in the Registry of this Court within one month for its disbursement as directed. In case of failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Writ petition of Dr. Himayon shall be delinked and listed before appropriate bench. Contention of the learned counsel for the other side that misstatement on affidavit by Dr. petitioner renders his petition liable to dismissal, we leave it open with liberty to him to raise it before the writ court. 14. Now a word about conduct of the PIL mover. Writ petition of Dr. Himayon shall be delinked and listed before appropriate bench. Contention of the learned counsel for the other side that misstatement on affidavit by Dr. petitioner renders his petition liable to dismissal, we leave it open with liberty to him to raise it before the writ court. 14. Now a word about conduct of the PIL mover. When the PIL was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. Petitioner was also heard at length but when asked to respond to the objection raised by the other side that this PIL was filed by him to seek an interim relief favouring his son which he couldnt get in an earlier petition (SWP 744 of 2008 Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K), he started to speak against all those Judges who had declined the interim relief to him aid also against those Judges who have decided cases against him. He raised his hands disrespectfully and shouted at the top of his voice that justice was denied to him all through. There being hardly any justification to create a scene in the court, it had become unavoidable to take cognizance of the contempt then and there, yet we thought it proper to pause for a while and then ascertain from him as to why unbecoming behaviour, accordingly directed to call out the PIL at 3.30 p.m. We also directed the PIL mover to remain present. PIL was taken up as directed. Learned counsel for the other side were present but the PIL mover did not appear despite direction of the court. Whether behaviour of the PIL mover in the court, besides his failure to enter appearance at 3.30 p.m. in spite of direction by the court, do make out a cause for action against the PIL mover, depends on the examination of the matter in light of the stand, the PIL mover opts for, therefore, no comment at this juncture, excepting a notice. 15. PIL mover-writ petitioner has asserted on affidavit that the writ petition aims at advancement/promotion of a public interest but it is in fact the other way round as is evidenced by our finding that it is a self serving litigation, obviously prima facie view that affidavit sworn in is false does emerge, of course rebutable, but cause for a notice has arisen. 16. 16. What we have said in the preceding paragraphs about the conduct of the PIL mover, that is not all according to learned counsel for the other side but there is something more serious and grave, sought to be founded on the statement made in the petition, describing himself as a Professor and a similar statement made by his son in his petition (SWP 744 of 2008) titled Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani v. State of J&K & others. It is also contended that the designation of the professor was mentioned to influence the mind of the court by features of a Professor. No doubt a Professor is a highly placed officer and in its ordinary sense signifies an academician, a very learned man, a highly educated, knowledgeable, intelligent and cultured person but whether these features of the post have influenced the mind of the court in drawing an inference of bona fides at the time notice was issued, we are unable to record a finding, reason being, absence of mention to that effect in the proceedings recorded by the court. However, let it be loud and clear that nothing prevents a Professor from mentioning his designation in a writ petition and if PIL mover is really one, he cannot be said to have faulted. Nevertheless if he is not, he owes an explanation to the court for filing affidavit pretending therein to be a Professor. To persuade us to hold that PIL movers affidavit is false, reference is made to paragraph (1) of petition No.53/2005 titled Abdul Gani Bhat Vs. Abdul Rashid Sahaf u/s 561-A of the Cr.P.C., which reads: "1. The petitioner happened to be an employee (Director Physical Education) of the Islamia College, Srinagar from March, 1968 to April, 2001." 17. Reference is also made to the stand of the college, employer of the petitioner reproduced in the same petition extracted hereunder: "An extra-ordinary meeting of teaching and non-teaching staff members was held on 4th July 1998 under the Chairmanship of the Principal. The functioning of the Physical Education in general and the conduct of Mr. Abdul Gani Bhat, Instructor in Physical Education was discussed in particular. All the Staff members were of the unanimous opinion that the work and conduct of Mr. A.G. Bhat is highly unsatisfactory and his behaviour towards the Administration as well as the staff and students of the College is disgusting. Abdul Gani Bhat, Instructor in Physical Education was discussed in particular. All the Staff members were of the unanimous opinion that the work and conduct of Mr. A.G. Bhat is highly unsatisfactory and his behaviour towards the Administration as well as the staff and students of the College is disgusting. The staff also deployed the role of Mr. Abdul Gani Bhat in tarnishing the fair image of the College by resorting every now and then to lodging false complains to the higher authorities."(Emphasis added by us) 18. Perusal of the reproduction aforementioned reveals that the petitioner in 561-A/Cr.P.C. has claimed to be the Director Physical Education of the College, whereas the College has described him as an Instructor Physical Education. On the contrary in the PIL he claims to be a Professor on affidavit. Same is true about his son and both of them (father and son) have made statements on affidavits which according to the other side are absolutely false. In that view of the matter, a question that calls for an answer from the PIL mover and his son Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani, is whether PIL mover is a Professor. If answer is in the affirmative, the controversy of falsity of the affidavit to that extent should end up but if it is otherwise, it may lead to a conclusion that affidavit is false. In that eventuality, they shall have to show cause if any against initiation of action in accordance with law. 19. Direction dated 10.2.2009 too has not been complied with by the PIL mover which stands extracted in paragraph (4) hereinabove. Prima facie PIL mover having observed direction in breach, therefore, a cause for a notice. In the meantime, he shall furnish names of the members of his Society with their parentage and complete address by next date. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar Societies also requiring him to inform the Registry whether any society has been registered in the name of Peoples Union for Justice, Pomposh Lane, Natipora Srinagar-1190019". 20. In the aforementioned backdrop, a direction hereby to the Registrar Judicial of the High Court (Srinagar wing) to diarize a copy of this judgment as a Miscellaneous Petition, draw up the notices against Professor Abdul Gani Bhat (PIL mover) in terms of facts, set out in preceding paragraphs (14) to (19) [both inclusive] and against Dr. 20. In the aforementioned backdrop, a direction hereby to the Registrar Judicial of the High Court (Srinagar wing) to diarize a copy of this judgment as a Miscellaneous Petition, draw up the notices against Professor Abdul Gani Bhat (PIL mover) in terms of facts, set out in preceding paragraphs (14) to (19) [both inclusive] and against Dr. Mohammad Himayon Gani, petitioner in SWP 744 of 2008, relating to the narrative of facts detailed in preceding paragraph (18), requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against. Notices to be made returnable within two weeks. Miscellaneous Petition to come up as per directions of the Lord Chief Justice.