Judgment :- PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J Two writ petitions have been filed. Both for almost the same relief, namely, a direction to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into the acts of abuse of power for personal gains by the 2nd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.11617/2009, who is the 5th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.13637/2009. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.11617/2009 is a Councillor of Sattur Panchayat Union, while the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13637/2009 is an Advocate and a Honorary Reporter of a magazine called "Paraparappu Seithi". Both these writ petitions have been filed as public interest litigations. 2. Wewill refer to the 2nd/5th respondent as "Officer" for the sake of convenience. 3.The Officer is at present the Chairman of TAFCORN, a Public Sector Undertaking. Previously, he was the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. He had attained superannuation on 30.11.2009. According to the petitioners, he had committed scandalous and gross misconduct and he goes scot-free on his superannuation, if no interference is made. According to the petitioners, a detailed probe would open one of the books scams/frauds committed by any public officer. The grievance is that the 1st respondent had not taken seriously any complaint received against the Officer, because he is equally in the rank of Chief Secretary and for obvious reason, the 1st respondent is showing restraint in taking action. 4.The present writ petitions are not the first writ petitions filed against this Officer. One Muniyandi and another driver were charged with dereliction of duty and were awarded punishment. In W.P. (MD)No.6943 of 2009, one Muniyandi prayed for a mandamus to direct the State Government to enquire into the large scale amazing of wealth by the Officer. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to conduct an enquiry. An enquiry was conducted, which, according to the petitioner, was farcical and an order was passed by the Enquiry Officer clearing the name of the Officer. According to the petitioner, this is contrary to the facts on record. Once again, the same Muninyandi filed W.P.(MD)No.7327/2009 challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in giving a clean chit and prayed for a detailed probe by CBI. According to the petitioner in WP(MD)No.11617/2009, as a counter blast, the said Muniyandi and another driver were charged with dereliction of duty and were awarded punishment. The petitioner alleges that because the Officer agreed to drop charges, the complainants withdrew the writ petitions and that this was a collusive formula. According to the petitioner in WP(MD)No.11617/2009, as a counter blast, the said Muniyandi and another driver were charged with dereliction of duty and were awarded punishment. The petitioner alleges that because the Officer agreed to drop charges, the complainants withdrew the writ petitions and that this was a collusive formula. It is alleged that the officer had appointed Muniyandi as Ranger only to ensure that he withdrew the writ petition. It is alleged that the Officer has committed several acts involving a foreigner of Auroville Botanical Gardens, wherein there is gross violation of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Allegations are made regarding transfer orders issued by the Officer which were all irregular. It is also alleged that in an afforestation scheme founded by the Government of Japan, the Officer had made illegal monetary gains. On these allegations, the first writ petition, namely W.P.(MD) No.11617/2009 was filed. 5.Basically, the allegations in the 2nd writ writ petition are also the same. 6.The officer has filed a separate counter and the 1st respondent has also filed a separate counter. 7.On the side of the petitioners, Mr.K.Mahendran and Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel made their submissions. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General made his submissions on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel, made his submissions on behalf of the 2nd respondent/officer. 8.In the counter filed by the State, it is stated that (a)while Muniyandi had made several allegations in the petition dated 20.11.2008, the Officer had given a detailed reply to this and requested the Government to permit him to initiate action against Muniyandi and also for permission to file a defamation case against him. The 1st respondent recorded the report of the officer and informed him to take disciplinary against as deemed fit. The 1st respondent examined the allegations made by the said Muniyandi and on receiving the details furnished by the officer came to a conclusion that no prima facie evidence existed. Since the Forest Ranger was punished by the Officer, he again made some allegations in W.P.(MD)No.6943/2009. The Government forwarded all the materials to Dr.N.Sundaradevan, a senior IAS Officer, to conduct an independent enquiry. He conducted the independent enquiry and furnished his report stating that there was no basis in the allegation. The Government had accepted the enquiry report and the copy of this independent report was also furnished to the said Muniyandi. The Government forwarded all the materials to Dr.N.Sundaradevan, a senior IAS Officer, to conduct an independent enquiry. He conducted the independent enquiry and furnished his report stating that there was no basis in the allegation. The Government had accepted the enquiry report and the copy of this independent report was also furnished to the said Muniyandi. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, this petitioner is on a matter already decided. (b)As regards the irregularities in the implementation of the Tamil Nadu Afforestation Project, it is stated in the counter that several independent evaluators have uniformly rated the implementation of the project as one of the best implemented external aided projects in the country. They are: "a.SAPI mission of funding agency (i.e.JBIC). b.On behalf of National Afforestation and Eco-development Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Envirosearch, Pune. c.Dr.R.K.Svianappan an eminent Water Technologist. d.An independent study carried out on behalf of National Afforestation and Eco- development Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India by Friends of Trees, Trivandrum. e.The Centre for Biodiversity and Forest Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai. f.Forest Survey of India, Dehradun." It is stated that JBIC, headquartered at Tokyo, conducted Ex-post evaluation TAP Phase-I of the Tamil Nadu Afforestation Project and gave it Grade A rating. (c)The Government has dealt with in detail the allegations regarding the Ranger Muniyandi filing writ petition and the compromise formula arrived at between the Officer and the said Muniyandi. It is stated by the 1st respondent that charges initiated by the District Forest Officer against the said Muniyandi was for his fraudulent misappropriation of Government Money through fabricating false vouchers and that the officer had not awarded any punishment and actually, against the punishment, Muniyandi had filed an appeal and thereafter a writ petition had been filed, which was dismissed. Against that, a writ appeal was filed where stay was granted. Therefore, restoration of Muniyandi to his original rank was only by virtue of the order of this Court. It appears that thereafter the said Muniyandi was transferred to a non-sensitive post. Against that, a writ appeal was filed where stay was granted. Therefore, restoration of Muniyandi to his original rank was only by virtue of the order of this Court. It appears that thereafter the said Muniyandi was transferred to a non-sensitive post. As regards Jeyakodi, he was also ordered to be dismissed, after disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Conservator of Forests had issued directions to the Deputy Conservator of Forests to give Jeyakodi another opportunity to defend his case and no role was played by this officer and it is stated clearly that the officer had pursued his action and the writ petition was dismissed at the instance of the respective petitioners themselves. (d)As regards the allegation regarding the irregular action of the officer with one foreign official, it is stated that the letter purportedly said to have been written by one Dr.Rajalinga Raja, but the said person himself denied having sent any such letter. It is also stated that as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the officer had instructed the District Forest Officers to follow the usual terms and conditions, which cannot be considered as a blank permission granted to any person or organization. Details are given regarding each transfer order which was said to have been directly passed by the officer. According to the first respondent, merely because Mr.Dr.Sundaradevan is also a senior officer, no presumption can be made that his approach would be biased. According to the 1st respondent, he is a respected officer who has held high regard and it is only after examining the materials, it was found that there was no justification to pursue any action. 9.In the counter filed by the officer himself, he had stated that the petitioner in W.P.No.11617/2009 is the brother of one Paulraj, I.F.S. and since many complaints were received against the said Paulraj, an enquiry was conducted against him and after a preliminary enquiry, there was an enquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and it is in the final stage of initiating criminal proceedings. Aggrieved by this, the said Paulraj has instigated the petitioner to file this writ petition in the garb of public interest. According to the officer, this is only a petition to settle scores. Aggrieved by this, the said Paulraj has instigated the petitioner to file this writ petition in the garb of public interest. According to the officer, this is only a petition to settle scores. Before the enquiry officer, both Muniyandi and the officer were heard and the officer had produced evidence to show that the properties purchased by him and his family members were purchased by the officer following the provisions of Rule 16(2) of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 or by his sons out of their own and independent income and once the Government has accepted the enquiry report, there can be no basis for these allegations. 10.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the officer is so powerful and it is only for that reason the Government is coming so heavily in his support. According to them, the officer had misused his position and caused huge loss to the department and inspite of that, he has been allowed to go scot-free. Learned counsel submitted that the enquiry conducted by Dr.Sundaradevan was merely an eye-wash and according to them, the said officer is a very pliant officer who would "cooperate with the Government to give a report which would suit the Government." Learned counsel referred to the various complaints made by the Drivers Association and other Employees to show that all is not well with the activities of the officer. 11.Learned Advocate General submitted that in the first place, the maintainability of this writ petition is in doubt. There are no bona fides in these writ petitions and no specific grounds have been made for amazing wealth. Learned Advocate General submitted that all details regarding the acquisition of properties had been placed by the officer before the Enquiry Officer whose report has also been placed before the Government. When there is no material, these writ petitions cannot be pursued. Learned Advocate General submitted that once the identity of the petitioner in W.P.No.11617 of 2009 was made known to the respondent, namely the brother of Paulraj "the supporting writ petition was filed by some one who claims to be the reporter of "Paraparappu Seithi". Learned Advocate General also submitted that the officer had taken stringent disciplinary action when he was in-charge and naturally there were many persons who wanted to wreck vengeance. Learned Advocate General also submitted that the officer had taken stringent disciplinary action when he was in-charge and naturally there were many persons who wanted to wreck vengeance. 12.Learned Advocate General referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court that has drawn guidelines regarding what would be a genuine public interest litigation. 13.Learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.M.Vijayan submitted that even before any action was initiated, the Officer had voluntarily made information regarding his acquisition on income. According to the learned senior counsel, both the petitioners were tainted by malafides and to allowing such allegations against some one on the eve of his retirement, who had unblemished record, would warrant imposition of exemplary costs. 14.The enquiry report filed by Dr.N.Sundaradevan, which is a voluminous one containing more than 700 pages and filed before us, also contains Xerox copies of sale deeds in respect of the properties purchased by the officer or his family members. It is needless to say, we cannot sit in appeal over the enquiry report even if challenge is made in a disciplinary proceedings in this case. What has been filed are public interest litigation against the officer. Paper booklet has also been filed containing Xerox copies of various orders obtained by Muniyandi in the numerous petitions filed by him. It is also seen that posting of Muniyandi was at the instance of the Joint Secretary to the Government by his letter dated 20.04.2009 to the Officer wherein it is informed that because orders have been stayed, the respondents may place the appellant in a section where financial involvement is not required. Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation that Muniyandi was again restored to the post of Ranger on account of some compromise formula and thereafter he withdrew the case. Restoration was pursuant to the stay order. The typed set of papers also encloses the complaint filed by the officer, after obtaining permission to proceed against Muniyandi under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is stated therein that acquisition of property was only in accordance with law. Thereafter, the said Muniyandi had addressed a letter to the Officer stating that since on his application an enquiry officer has been appointed and enquiry has been concluded, he sought pardon of the officer and requested him to withdraw C.C. No.10148/2009. Thereafter, the said Muniyandi had addressed a letter to the Officer stating that since on his application an enquiry officer has been appointed and enquiry has been concluded, he sought pardon of the officer and requested him to withdraw C.C. No.10148/2009. 15.It is seen from the typed set of papers that after allegations were made against the officer and a complaint was given, Dr.Sundaradevan was appointed to enquire into the matter and both the complainant and the officer had participated in the enquiry. It is very unfair to make allegations against the officer who conducted the enquiry, when he is not present before the Court and therefore we ignore all the comments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners against the said enquiry officer. In any event, when the person against whom a complaint is made is a senior officer, necessarily another senior officer will have to be appointed to enquire into the allegations and merely because both of them are senior officers of the service, imputations of bias cannot be wildly made. 16.The driver Jeyakodi had earlier filed a similar writ petition and his only attack was the Assistant Conservator of Forests and it was dismissed rightly by this Court stating that no public interest litigation is maintainable in respect of service matters. In AIR 2004 SC 280 - Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court described the history of public interest litigation and why such an important concept was developed by the Supreme Court and that was to extent the long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated. For example, the persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons undergoing sentence of life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, etc. But, it is observed by the Supreme Court that this weapon has to be used with great care and caution but we find that it is degenerated into a litigation by persons pretending to act probona publico. In Paragraphs 16 and 24, the Supreme Court observed as follows. "16.As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. In Paragraphs 16 and 24, the Supreme Court observed as follows. "16.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 petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu 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. 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 petitioners but also to impose exemplary 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. 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. 24.Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sundri and others v. Union of India ( 1981 (1) SCC 568 ) in stronger terms stated (SCC p. 589, para 48): "If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the Court will not be ajar for him."" 17.Recently in Civil Appeal Nos.1134 and 1135 of 2002, decided on 18th January, 2010 -State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, the Supreme Court issued several directions to preserve the purity and sanctity of Public Interest Litigation. In that case, the Supreme Court imposed exemplary costs and directed that the costs should be recovered as arrears of land revenue and a fund should be credited in the name of "Uttarkhand Lawyers Welfare Fund" and the fund should be utilized for providing necessary help to deserving young lawyers by the Chief Justice of Uttarkhand. Paragraphs 197, 198 and 199 of the said judgment read as follows: "197.We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. 198.In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:- (1)The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2)Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3)The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4)The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5)The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6)The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (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 petitioners filed for extraneous considerations. 199.Copies of this judgment be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts within one week." 18.There is no public interest involved in these two writ petitions. No public interest litigation can be filed in service jurisprudence. It is only to avoid litigation that Paulraj had obviously decided to shadow box this PIL behind his brother. There are no bona fides and fearing rejection on this ground, the "Paraparappu Seithi" person has filed the 2nd writ petition. The provider of sensational news need not mean he publishes truthful news. Sensational news may even be tailored. The Government has done what it can do in the face of the complaints and had appointed a senior officer to go into the complaints. The enquiry report has indicated that all the allegations are baseless. We cannot go beyond this and give direction to the CBI to enquire into the matter. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the facts stated in the counter or in the affidavit. The enquiry report has indicated that all the allegations are baseless. We cannot go beyond this and give direction to the CBI to enquire into the matter. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the facts stated in the counter or in the affidavit. We are only stating that on the basis of what was alleged and the previous history of similar writ petitions filed against the same officer, we feel that there is no public interest involved. It is surely the disgruntled reaction of persons who are affected by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them by the officer. 19.In the circumstances and following the judgment of the Supreme Court, which we have extracted above, we have to dismiss the writ petitions, imposing costs of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) in the case of W.P.NO.11617/2009 and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand) in the case of the other, payable to the Officer. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.