JUDGMENT 1. - By way of filing this writ petition under the label of public interest litigation, the petitioner has prayed for following relief's:- " v ) ;g gS fd vizkFkhZx.k dks funsZ'k fn;s tkosa fd os lEcfU/kr vkosndksa }kjk jgoklh; ifjlj esa fcuk vuqefr ds fd;s x;s O;kolkf;d fuekZ.k dk;Z dk /oLr djsaA c ) izkfFkZuh dh mDr tufgr ;kfpdk dks lO;; Lohdkj Qjek;k tkosaA l ) ;g fd vU; dksbZ U;k;ksfpr vkns'k tks tufgr esa gks ikfjr Qjek;k tkosaA " 2. Upon perusal of the petition, which is filed under the label of Public Interest Litigation, it emerges that without imp-leading any party as respondents against whom the allegations have been levelled that they are raising commercial constructions, this writ petition has been filed. Further, upon pleadings, it is also revealed that this petition has been filed by one Smt. Ragini w/o Jai Prakash, through power of attorney holder Girdhar Gopal, s/o late Shri Mangilal, r/o House No.11, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur. 3. Upon plain reading of the petition, it is abundantly clear that petitioner, through her power of attorney, is having grievance that in the Housing Board area there should not be any commercial construction and houses allotted for the residential purpose should not be used for commercial purpose. Mere general averments have been made in the writ petition; and, for the same, it is informed by the Addl. Advocate General Shri R.L. Jangid that Government is taking appropriate decision in this regard and if the petitioner's grievance is genuine and aimed at public interest, then, she can file appropriate representation before the State Government and State Government will be taking decision in accordance with law. 4. It is true that in public interest litigation, the problem of public at large or group of persons as may be called public may be voiced but Court cannot allow such petitions to be filed for private purpose, or personal grouse, or, it may be to wreak vengeance on account of personal heart burning. 4. It is true that in public interest litigation, the problem of public at large or group of persons as may be called public may be voiced but Court cannot allow such petitions to be filed for private purpose, or personal grouse, or, it may be to wreak vengeance on account of personal heart burning. This Court may here observe that now a days, employment is very big problem and if anybody who has been allotted house or plot for residential purpose, or his wards, are doing some small-scale business or activity for earning livelihood and, for the same, the residential premises is used without raising solely commercial construction, then, normally, it should not be objected to by private individuals unless it creates or generates some practical nuisance or hazard for the public at large. 5. These days, in routine and casual manner, under the label of public interest, unnecessary petitions seeking orders from the Court are filed. Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned such type of petitions and this petition is also of the same nature. How the allotted houses will be used it is domain of the allottee to utilise the same; but, at the same time, he cannot be permitted to disturb the peace and environment of the area. Similarly, how the premises will be allowed to be used, or permitted to be utilised, this is domain of the State Government. This Court cannot pass any orders to legislate any law in this behalf. In our opinion, if any genuine grievance of public is in existence, then, of course, the petitioner can file representation to the State Government with regard to using a particular place for commercial purpose even though it is allotted for residential purpose. In that event, however, at the time of taking decision, the State Government should take into consideration that employment avenues are not available and if for the purpose of materialising or enhancement of livelihood somebody chooses to utilise portion of his residential premises, then, generally it does not give any good and lawful reason for the State interference. Therefore, while taking decision, this need be taken into account that residents may, in their residential premises, utilise some portion of the premises for the said purpose; for illustration, small shops and stores for general purposes, stationery or book stalls, low scale vendors and tea or pan stalls, STD booths, etc. Therefore, while taking decision, this need be taken into account that residents may, in their residential premises, utilise some portion of the premises for the said purpose; for illustration, small shops and stores for general purposes, stationery or book stalls, low scale vendors and tea or pan stalls, STD booths, etc. and, in fact, these cater to the general need and requirement which inhabitants in the area would usually desire and look for. Therefore, the interest of those premises is also required to be taken into consideration. 6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition which is filed under the garb of PIL is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner that if she has any grievance in public interest, then, appropriate representation may be filed to the State Government and, of course, it is expected of the State in such case, the representation shall be considered objectively and appropriate decision may be taken, while keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in this order.Petition Dismissed. *******