The Court:- Heard Ms. Pushpila Bist, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaus Beg and Sri C.S.Pandey for respondent No.s 1 and 2, Sri A.K.Verma for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan for respondent No.6. 2. The petition has been filed by one Prabhat Narain, resident of 496/11 Anga, Madhur Nikunj, Chhota Chandganj, Lucknow. 3. The petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has shown himself to be a practising Advocate and a conscious citizen of the country. The petitioner has not given any further details or credentials about himself. 4. The petitioner in the very first paragraph of the petition has stated that he is challenging the authorisation granted by the prescribed Authority in favour of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation for operating the facility of collection, reception, storage, transport and disposal of bio-medical waste i.e. common bio-medical waste treatment facility under the provisions of Bio-Medical Waste Handling Rules, 1998 and the amended Rules of 2000. Although the petitioner shows his concern about the environment and the pollution created by the bio-medical waste but at the same time vide prayer no.4 it prays that the Lucknow Municipal Corporation should be punished for extorting money from hospital units without actually providing the facility of disposal of bio-medical waste. This prayer clearly indicates that the complaint is being made on behalf of some hospital which can itself come before the Court and make a complaint, secondly, any person concerned with the pollution created by the bio-medical waste would not be expected to try to stop whatever effort is being made by the authorities like the U.P. Pollution Control Board by giving authorization to the Lucknow Municipal Corporation for catering to the waste management. On one hand, the petitioner wants that the common bio-medical waste treatment facility be upgraded, on the other hand, it questions the effort made by the U.P. Pollution Control Board and the Lucknow Municipal Corporation. The, twin prayers can not go hand in hand. Asking for better facilities, better equipments, latest technology, up-gradation of the existing infrastructure is one thing but to pray for stopping whatever facilities are available, is a totally contradictory proposition. 5. It appears that the petitioner is more interested in getting the authorization of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation cancelled than in the actual remedy of the pollution control. Asking for better facilities, better equipments, latest technology, up-gradation of the existing infrastructure is one thing but to pray for stopping whatever facilities are available, is a totally contradictory proposition. 5. It appears that the petitioner is more interested in getting the authorization of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation cancelled than in the actual remedy of the pollution control. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest judgement in Civil Appeal No.s 1134-1135 of 2002, namely State of Uttaranchal through its Principal Secretary (Law) Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others have given certain guidelines to streamline the public interest litigations. The said judgment has been circulated to all the High Courts under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated January 18, 2010. Guidelines No.7 & 8 of the said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court lays down as follows:- "(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8)The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." 6. A perusal of the contents of the PIL demonstrates that the instant public interest litigation is aimed at cancellation of the authorization given to the Lucknow Municipal Corporation. In the counter affidavit filed by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 it has been stated that the Lucknow Municipal Corporation is committed for improvement and has also invited tenders from the prospective operators who are experts in the field and are operating the said facility in other areas. It has reserved about 10.0 Hect. of land at Raibarely Road in village Budhana, Tehsil Mohanlalganj to establish a better 'Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility'. Some private firm has challenged this tender notice through Writ Petition No.9423 (M/B) of 2009 and because of the interim orders, work has been stopped at the 'tender' stage. 7. This goes to show that instead of stopping the work of Lucknow Municipal Corporation, helping the Lucknow Municipal Corporation will be more in the interest of the petitioner than filing a writ petition against it. 7. This goes to show that instead of stopping the work of Lucknow Municipal Corporation, helping the Lucknow Municipal Corporation will be more in the interest of the petitioner than filing a writ petition against it. Moreover, under the Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998 as amended in 2000 and 2003 a provision of appeal has been provided under Rule 13 of the said rules. For convenience provision is being quoted hereunder: "13. Appeal 1. (Save as otherwise provided in sub-rule (2) any person) aggrieved by an order made by the prescribed authority under these rules may, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to such authority as the Government of State/Union Territory may think fit to constitute. Provided that the authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time." 8. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the authorization issued in favour of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation, he should have filed an appeal before the Prescribed Authority but instead of filing the appeal the petitioner has moved this public interest litigation for quashing of the authorization issued in favour of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation. We feel that the petitioner, though has raised a very important question but we are not satisfied that the public interest litigation is maintainable in the present format. Further, the prayer which is being made by the petitioner is contradictory in terms. The objective of the petitioner can not be obtained by cancellation of authorisation but rather by giving the directions to the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to upgrade its facilities to the highest level of accuracy and efficiency. 9. We, therefore, dismiss the petition, while directing the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to cure the deficiency in its system, if any, and try to build the 'Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility' of international standards. 10. No order is passed as to costs.