JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'CBI') to investigate into the allegations basing upon which various reports have been submitted, i.e., R.C.Behera Inquiry Report (Annexure-2), State Women Commission Enquiry Report dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure-3) on the allegation of women students, State Women Commission Report dated 19.05.2008 (Annexure-4) on the allegation of a lady Professor, complaint dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure-6) of Miss Bhagyalaxmi Pradhan, Enquiry Report dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure-8) submitted by Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department and on daily media diary (Annexure-10). Further, prayer of the Petitioner is to direct Special A.G. (Audit) to make audit of the accounts of the Berhampur University. 2. This writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a practising Advocate claiming himself as a social as well as human activist. According to the Petitioner, after passing LL.B. and LL.M. from Berhampur University in 2009 he has registered his name in the same University for Ph.D. in Law. Besides his engagement in legal profession, he is also actively engaged in social and human rights activities and is deeply acting against the corruption, nepotism, favouritism in all governmental works to save the public funds from being siphoned by the corrupted government officials. 3. Petitioner's case in a nut shell is that Berhampur University has been established in the year 1967 and during last 43 years it has been recognized as a premier University in India. There are twenty-one departments of different disciplines wherein around twelve hundred students are admitted every year. Initially, one hundred fifty teaching staff were appointed, but due to deteriorating condition of the University in various fronts student strength has been reduced to eight hundred and teaching staff have also been reduced to one hundred. Gradual reduction of students as well as strength of teaching staff is solely attributed to rampant malpractices, corruption, irregularities, illegal appointment and promotion of teachers, blatant violation of University Rules and Regulations and academic norMs. All these have resulted in completely jeopardizing the faith of the people in the standard of education in Berhampur University. The Hon'ble Chancellor, Berhampur University on the request of the State government on several complaints has been pleased to appoint Sri R.C.Behera, the then Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Range to hold an enquiry and furnish a report on the complaints made against Prof. The Hon'ble Chancellor, Berhampur University on the request of the State government on several complaints has been pleased to appoint Sri R.C.Behera, the then Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Range to hold an enquiry and furnish a report on the complaints made against Prof. (Dr.) B.K.Sahu (O.P. No. 4) and others. Sri R.C.Behera, as enquiry officer, has conducted enquiry into the alleged commission of irregularities and submitted a report to the Hon'ble Chancellor, Berhampur University alleging various illegalities and irregularities like illegal appointment of Dr. B.K.Sahu as Professor of Marine Science, misutilization and misappropriation of funds, fake and fraudulent research conducted by Dr. B.K.Sahu, financial irregularities, manipulation in examination and criminal conspiracy, gross irregularities in the office of the D.O.D., illegal appointment of Dr. Dipak Ranjan Das, Research Associate and multi-crore scam in Marine Science Department along with various recommendations. According to the Petitioner, the Hon'ble Chancellor on receipt of the R.C.Behera Enquiry Report vide letter dated 17.08.1999 directed the Vice-Chancellor to place the enquiry report before the Syndicate. Pursuant to such direction of the Hon'ble Chancellor, Syndicate of the Berhampur University considered the enquiry report of Sri R.C.Behera and took action against the officials excluding Prof. Dr. B.K.Sahu (O.P. No. 4) because of deep rooted conspiracy and unholy nexus. Dr. B.K.Sahu being a student of Chemistry could become a Professor of Marine Science by gaining favour of different authorities in the process of selection. Dr. B.K.Sahu even managed to become the Vice-Chancellor and has tried his level best to suppress and punish the popular, honest and academically excellent teachers and professors of the University so that he can reign in the University safely without any bottleneck and hindrance with ulterior motive of siphoning out the University funds. Dr. B.K.Sahu used a woman student against a very reputed and popular Professor, who was always a threat to his office and a strong contender for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The said woman student raised a very nasty allegation against the Professor that he misbehaved with her and such allegation was reported in the media by Dr. B.K.Sahu with a motive to demoralize the said Professor. Getting such allegation of misbehaviour in the Press, the then State Women Commission immediately rushed to the University and enquired into the said allegation and submitted an enquiry report to the Governor-Chancellor, Chief Minister and Ors. on 19.05.2008(Annexure-3). B.K.Sahu with a motive to demoralize the said Professor. Getting such allegation of misbehaviour in the Press, the then State Women Commission immediately rushed to the University and enquired into the said allegation and submitted an enquiry report to the Governor-Chancellor, Chief Minister and Ors. on 19.05.2008(Annexure-3). Similarly, getting complaint from a lady Professor regarding misbehaviour by Dr. B.K.Sahu to her, the State Women Commission also enquired into the allegation. The said enquiry report reveals that Dr. B.K.Sahu had misbehaved with the Lady Professor Dr. S.B.Padhi for not supporting him. Another woman student Miss Bhagyalaxmi Pradhan has submitted a written complaint on 10.12.2008 to the Hon'ble Chancellor against Dr. B.K.Saho. Several complaints on the allegation of corruption, mismanagement and nepotism etc. against the Vice-Chancellor-Dr.B.K.Sahu were also brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chancellor. The Hon'ble Chancellor again appointed the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department as Fact Finding Enquiry Officer vide order No. U-III-7/09/460 dated 08.06.2009 to ascertain the truth of such allegation. Opp. Party No. 2 also received hundreds of complaints against the Berhampur University on various allegations. Sri Madhusudan Padhi, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 19.02.2010 to the Hon'ble Chancellor on four issues such as-(a) process of implementation of e-governance project and payments thereof; (b) violation of O.R.V. Act and Rules etc.; (c) Purchase of chairs and other items for the newly constructed Auditorium Hall of the University; (d) fraudulent research on the project on Olive Ridley Turtles funded by Reliance Industries. Finally, Petitioner's prayer is for issuance of a direction for an independent authority like CBI to investigate into the allegation/finding of the R.C.Behera report for recovery of multi-crore funds and suitable action against Dr. B.K.Sahu as well as other officials of the University because they are likely to be unduly influenced by the delinquent Professor Dr. B.K.Sahu (O.P. No. 4). 4. Mr. M.S. Panda, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even though three months have passed after submission of the first report vide Annexure-8, the Hon'ble Chancellor has not taken any action on the same. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department after submission of the report has also not taken into consideration the further points of allegation referred to him and concluded his enquiry. Therefore, opp. party No. 2 be directed to conduct enquiry on rest of the issues and submit his final report. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department after submission of the report has also not taken into consideration the further points of allegation referred to him and concluded his enquiry. Therefore, opp. party No. 2 be directed to conduct enquiry on rest of the issues and submit his final report. Because of the conduct of Dr. B.K.Sahu, image of the University has gone down seriously. Almost 50% of the seats are lying vacant for which the University is running under acute financial crisis and students are No. more attracted by the academic excellence of the University. Dr. B.K.Sahu is living like a king in the official residence of the University. When all the required facilities of a Vice-Chancellor are available in the said Vice-Chancellor quarters, O.P. No. 4 has additionally furnished the said quarter at the expense of the University funds with all luxurious, valuable and selected items of reputed brands which had been provided beyond the budget provision of the University. Mr. Panda further submitted that the issue of maintainability raised by opposite party No. 4 is not sustainable as the same has been raised to escape from ultimate action of the enquiry reports. The present P.I.L. is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm and public injury. The allegation of personal grudge or vendetta of PIL Petitioner against opp. party No. 4 is unfounded, baseless, concocted and imaginary. Since in spite of several approaches and representations, opp. party No. 4 the then Vice-Chancellor and other authorities of the University did not publish the result of LL.M. Examination, the Petitioner filed C.C. No. 100 of 2007 on 5.6.2007 against the Vice-Chancellor and other University authorities. The name of Smt. Namitarani Panda, wife of the P.I.L. Petitioner did not find place in the select list for appointment of guest faculties. The wife of the Petitioner and another Sri A. Shamaghana jointly filed Civil Suit No. 264 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur against the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Chariman P.G. Council etc. The P.I.L. Petitioner does not know as to who is Biranchi Narayana Mohapatra and he has No. relation with the said Mohapatra. Therefore, the allegation that there was unholy alliance between them is not correct. The sole aim of the Petitioner is to save the public money being siphoned out by the vested interests and corrupt officials of the University. The P.I.L. Petitioner does not know as to who is Biranchi Narayana Mohapatra and he has No. relation with the said Mohapatra. Therefore, the allegation that there was unholy alliance between them is not correct. The sole aim of the Petitioner is to save the public money being siphoned out by the vested interests and corrupt officials of the University. The present P.I.L. being well founded on the basis of the enquiry report, the same is neither vexatious nor frivolous and the same does not amount to abuse of process of law and forum of this Court. In the last Parliamentary Election, opp. party No. 4 had campaigned in favour of Chandra Sekhar Sahoo, Ex-Minister of State, Government of India, who happens to be his close relation but when the enquiry was conducted neither the PIL Petitioner was contacted by the inquiry officer nor an appropriate inquiry could be conducted due to influence of opposite party No. 4. The PIL Petitioner being the citizen of India was duty bound to complain before the Chief Election Commission for the sake of free and fair election. Such activities of the Petitioner cannot be held as personal dispute between them. Since the Hon'ble Chancellor has directed for taking appropriate action by the Syndicate of Berhampur University on the basis of inquiry report, the allegations are correct. Counteracting the averments made by opposite party No. 4 in the counter affidavit, Mr. Panda submitted that the Petitioner has No. grievance against opposite party No. 4 with regard to publication of LL.M. Examination. The case of the Petitioner is in No. way connected with opposite party No. 4, because of some error in LL.M. Examination Certificate certain applications were filed for correction. There are several newspaper publications regarding the irregularities and mismanagement in Berhampur University which justifies the C.B.I. enquiry. 5. Mr. S.K. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 submitted that this P.I.L. is not maintainable. If there is any allegation against membership of any authorities or other bodies of the University then the Syndicate is empowered u/s 29 of the University Act to remove such person. 6. Mr. B.S. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 -Berhampur University submitted that the writ petition by efflux of time has become infructuous, as Dr. If there is any allegation against membership of any authorities or other bodies of the University then the Syndicate is empowered u/s 29 of the University Act to remove such person. 6. Mr. B.S. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 -Berhampur University submitted that the writ petition by efflux of time has become infructuous, as Dr. B.K. Sahu against whom almost all the allegations have been raised while he was acting as Vice-Chancellor of the University, is No. more in the said post. The Hon'ble Chancellor having dropped Sri R.C. Behera Commission report, there is No. need to issue any direction to any authority to enquire about the R.C. Behera report afresh. Mr. Mishra emphatically argued that u/s 23 of the University Act, the accounts of the University shall be audited at least once in a year in accordance with the provisions of Orissa Local Fund Audit Act, 1948. The State Government shall also have power to conduct special audit if required in respect of utilization of funds granted by the Government to the University and such University shall comply with the direction issued by the Government on such audit report. In view of adequate provision for audit of accounts, there is No. need to entrust the matter of alleged financial irregularities to C.B.I for enquiry. 7. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous, as Dr. B.K. Sahu against whom all the allegations have been levelled in the writ petition, is No. more functioning as Vice-Chancellor of the University. Apart from that, the Government and the Chancellor have already dropped Sri R.C. Behera Commission report. 8. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 4 raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition submitted that the Petitioner has No. locus standi to file the present writ petition. It is submitted that opposite party No. 4 worked as Vice-Chancellor of the Berhampur University from 27.7.2007 to 26.7.2010. Presently, he is working as Professor of Marine Sciences (Oceanography) in the Berhampur University. Placing reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Presently, he is working as Professor of Marine Sciences (Oceanography) in the Berhampur University. Placing reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Others it was submitted that the present writ petition has been filed in the nature of P.I.L. with oblique motive and extraneous consideration and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. The Petitioner-Hemanta Kumar Panda in the present writ petition and the Petitioner-Biranchi Narayan Mohapatra in W.P.(C) No. 8602 of 2010 have entered into an unholy alliance. Their sole aim is to see that opposite party No. 4 should not continue for the second term as Vice-Chancellor of Berhampur University or any other important position. In a series of newspaper publications they raised a bogy of corruption and misappropriation of funds of the University and made this opposite party No. 4 responsible for the same. They also wrote several letters to various authorities including the President of India, Prime Minister of India, Chancellor, Chief Minister and Ors. without any evidence, materials and stale materials which were scrutinized by the judiciary and found to be of No. consequence. On the basis of newspaper, reports they filed the writ petitions and gave wide publicity in the print and electronic media and defamed opposite party No. 4. Bare perusal of the writ petition would show that the entire averment, prayer and interim prayer are directed against this opposite party. They have succeeded in their game plan. Name of this opposite party was short-listed for the post of Vice Chancellor of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishwavidyalay, Puri, but due to pendency of this litigation, this opposite party could not get the said post. This opposite party also could not get the post of Vice-Chancellor of Berhampur University for the second term in spite of his good performance for which he received a letter of appreciation from the Hon'ble Chancellor (Annexure-C/4). These two Petitioners have done incalculable harm to this opposite party by filing frivolous and vexatious petitions and thus have abused the process of law and forum of this Court to settle their personal scores. 9. Mr. These two Petitioners have done incalculable harm to this opposite party by filing frivolous and vexatious petitions and thus have abused the process of law and forum of this Court to settle their personal scores. 9. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that the dispute between the Petitioner and this opposite party started with the selection to the post of Guest Lecturer in Lingaraj Law College under the administrative control of Berhampur University. Srimati Namitarani Panda, wife of Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8327 of 2010 applied for the post of Guest Lecturer in Lingaraj Law College, Berhampur for which interview was conducted on 17.11.2007 by a duly constituted selection Committee and she was not found suitable by the selection Committee. This opposite party was neither the Chairman nor a member of the Selection Committee. As the Vice Chancellor of the University he was the approving authority. Hemanta Kumar Panda approached this opposite party and requested to give appointment to his wife. When this opposite party turned down the request of Sri Panda, thereafter, Sri Panda did not miss any opportunity to embarrass this opposite party. Hemanta Kumar Panda, being an advocate by profession, has joined hands with Sri B.N. Mahapatra, who is a journalist in "Sambad Kalika" and started submitting imaginary stories of corruption and misappropriation of funds of the University in "Sambad Kalika" and other news papers to create the ill-feeling against this opposite party among the local people. 10. Smt. Namitarani Panda, wife of Hemanta Kumar Panda filed C.S. No. 264 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur praying for a declaration that the result published vide letter No. 168 dated 21.11.2007 is illegal, void and inoperative and for a direction to the Defendants (Berhampur University, Vice-Chancellor and others) to conduct fresh interview and restraining the Defendants from giving effect to the result published through letter No. 168 dated 21.11.2007. In the said suit, she also moved an application for injunction being I.A. No. 143 of 2007. By order dated 12.08.2008, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur was pleased to dismiss the same. 11. Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda lodged a complaint before the Chief Election Officer, Bhubaneswar alleging violation of model code of conduct by this opposite party while holding the office of Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University. By order dated 12.08.2008, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur was pleased to dismiss the same. 11. Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda lodged a complaint before the Chief Election Officer, Bhubaneswar alleging violation of model code of conduct by this opposite party while holding the office of Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University. The office of the Hon'ble Chancellor by letter dated 15.04.2009 requested the Vice-Chancellor to furnish an exhaustive report in the matter. The allegation was enquired into and ultimately the same was dropped as it was found to be false. Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam being numbered as C.C. No. 100 of 2007 with the allegation that certificate in LL.M. Examination given to him by the University did not bear the signature of this opposite party. This allegation was absolutely false as he himself erased the signature and made complaint before the Consumer Forum, Ganjam to defame this opposite party in the eyes of general public by publishing the same in "Anupam Bharat", an Odiya daily. Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda lodged a complaint before the Hon'ble Chancellor that this opposite party instructed all the Professors of the P.G. Department (Law), Lecturer of the University Law College not to sign the application form of Sri Panda to act as his guide for Ph.D. work. The complaint was forwarded to the University by the office of the Chancellor for inquiry and appropriate action. Matter was enquired into by the Chairman, P.G. Council, Berhampur University. Staff Council of P.G. Department of Law passed the following resolution: Resolution to submit that the research being the exclusive prerogative of the faculty and the concerned scholar, there has been No. chance for any direction/order from any authority whatsoever; in the current case there has been No. pressure from any authority to any of the faculty of the P.G. Department of Law, to enroll or not to enroll any scholar. Principal of Lingaraj Law College has communicated as follows: ......3. The teachers of Lingaraj Law College at the staff Council meeting held on September 25, 2008 stated that allegations made by Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda were false and baseless. The Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor had never instructed them to harass Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda by refusing to act as his guide/supervisor. By letter dated 25.09.2008, Berhampur University intimated the Hon'ble Chancellor that the allegations of Sri Panda were false and baseless. The Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor had never instructed them to harass Sri Hemanta Kumar Panda by refusing to act as his guide/supervisor. By letter dated 25.09.2008, Berhampur University intimated the Hon'ble Chancellor that the allegations of Sri Panda were false and baseless. Except news paper reports, which are not evidence according to law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and his own appeal/memorandum to the different authorities/dignitaries which are self serving documents, Petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate the averments in the writ petition and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 12. According to Mr. Mohanty, the Petitioner is not a public spirited citizen. In the writ petition, No. document has been annexed to show that the Petitioner has done anything any where for upliftment/betterment of poor, downtrodden and needy people of the society. The Petitioner has not averred in the writ petition as to who have suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury or as to whose legal right has been violated. In the writ petition, it is not disclosed as to who are socially or economically backward and unable to approach this Court for relief and for them the present Petitioner has approached this Court. The allegations regarding manipulations, misappropriations, mal-practices and rampant corruption against opposite party No. 4 are incorrect and based on No. material. The Petitioner is a busy body and his only aim is to defame opposite party No. 4. 13. Finding of Sri R.C.Behera in his report with regard to appointment of opposite party No. 4 in the post of Prof. Marine Science (Oceanography) of Berhampur University has been set at rest for all time to come by the judgment dated 20.12.1994 passed in O.J.C. No. 6954 of 1993 and by judgment dated 18.3.1998 in O.J.C. No. 1425 of 1997 of this Court. The order dated 18.3.1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 1425 of 1997 was challenged in a SLP filed by the Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University which was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The finding given in R.C.Behera Inquiry report against this opposite party No. 4 with regard to financial irregularities, i.e., misutilisation and misappropriation of funds, fake and fraudulent research by Dr. The order dated 18.3.1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 1425 of 1997 was challenged in a SLP filed by the Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University which was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The finding given in R.C.Behera Inquiry report against this opposite party No. 4 with regard to financial irregularities, i.e., misutilisation and misappropriation of funds, fake and fraudulent research by Dr. B.K. Sahu and multi crores scam in Marine Science Department was dropped as the same was not substantiated by the special audit conducted by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Orissa. The State Government after careful consideration rejected the suggestion given in the R.C. Behera Inquiry report. The averments made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition are stated to be incorrect and hence denied. The finding of the Chairperson, State Commission for Women is based on No. evidence. It is submitted that by virtue of judgment of this Court, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, controversy regarding appointment of opposite party No. 4 to the post of Professor of Marine Science (Oceanography) of Berhampur University has been set at rest for all time to come. The Chairperson, Orissa State Commission for Women has given the finding without giving liberty of hearing to opposite party No. 4. Hon'ble Chancellor was not satisfied with the report of the State Commission for Women and directed opposite party No. 4 to submit a report after completion and finalization of departmental inquiry against the delinquent teacher. The allegation that opposite party No. 4 misbehaved with Lady Prof. S.B.Padhy is incorrect. This opposite party has never instigated Miss. Pradhan to file a case against the mis-behaviour shown to her by Prof. A.K. Panigrahi at the Police Station. In the report of Mr. M.S. Padhi, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department, there is No. finding with regard to corruption or financial irregularities against opposite party No. 4. The delay in promotion of Sri Markand Karji to the post of P.A. to Registrar, Vice-Chancellor was due to the scrutiny of complaints made against Sri Karji. Sri Padhi in his report categorically stated that there has been No. manipulation in purchase of Audi-II Chairs for Biju Pattnaik Auditorium of Berhmapur University. 14. Mr. The delay in promotion of Sri Markand Karji to the post of P.A. to Registrar, Vice-Chancellor was due to the scrutiny of complaints made against Sri Karji. Sri Padhi in his report categorically stated that there has been No. manipulation in purchase of Audi-II Chairs for Biju Pattnaik Auditorium of Berhmapur University. 14. Mr. Mohanty further submitted that a bare perusal of the final report based upon fact finding enquiry of Berhampur University dated 31.5.2010 by Sri Padhi would show that there is No. finding against opposite party No. 4. As per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the newspaper report does not constitute evidence and a petition based on newspaper report without invoking its authenticity should not normally be entertained. Opposite party No. 4, as Vice-Chancellor, has availed himself all the facilities permissible under the University guidelines. Controversy which the Petitioner has raised in the petitions stands concluded a decade ago by order of Government of Orissa in Higher Education Department, by order of Hon'ble Chancellor and by judgment of the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. With these averments Sri Mohanty made a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. On the rival contentions of the parties, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court. (i) Whether the present writ petition which has been filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable? (ii) Whether it is a fit case to direct for C.B.I. enquiry in view of various allegations stated in the writ petition? 16. To deal with the question No. (i), it would be profitable to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court with regard to entertaining the Public Interest Litigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, that the Court should prima facie verify the credentials of the Petitioner and the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a P.I.L. The Court should ensure that 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. In the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph-87 as under: 87. The Court should also ensure that there is No. personal gain/private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. In the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph-87 as under: 87. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No. doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court. In the case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph-107: 107. 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 from 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. In the case of Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: 17. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. In the case of Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: 17. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare No. efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long 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 undue delay in service matters -government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu 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 busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely No. public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing 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 courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 18. 18. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, the court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 19. The court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have No. interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 20. 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 the courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigation. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, the courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that the petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases, newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts 17. In S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others the apex Court has warned by saying that the Court must be careful that the members of the public who approach the Court are acting bona fide and not in personal garb of private profit or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused. Similar view has been taken in Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, . 18. In Mrs. Veena Sethi Vs. The Court must not allow its process to be abused. Similar view has been taken in Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, . 18. In Mrs. Veena Sethi Vs. State of Bihar and Others the apex Court has observed that the role of law requires to be played for the poor and ignorant who constitute a large bulk of humanity in this country and the Court must uphold the basic human rights of weaker sections of the society. 19. In R and M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and Others the Supreme Court cautioned the Courts that the Public Interest Litigation should be entertained in rare cases where it is satisfied that public at large stand to suffer. The jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked for the purpose of serving private ends and professional rivalry. The Court observed that the Public Interest Litigation is No. doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought a very bad name. Courts should be very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest; in very rare cases where the public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the downtrodden. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of public interest litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contact. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of innocent people or organization in titling public interest litigation. The courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding the implications and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, Courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in very rare/ few cases involving public interest or a large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities. 20. The Apex Court in Bholanath Mukherjee and Ors. Therefore, Courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in very rare/ few cases involving public interest or a large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities. 20. The Apex Court in Bholanath Mukherjee and Ors. v. R.K. mission v. Centenary College and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2457 of 2006, disposed of on April 18, 2011, held as follows: 22. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel. As noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, the entire pleadings in the writ petition are founded on the personal grievance of the writ Petitioners/Appellants. The writ Petitioners have not come before this Court as educationists. Merely because they are senior most teachers in the same institution, would not necessarily give rise to the presumption, that they had filed the writ petition in public interest. In our opinion, a pure and simple service dispute is sought to be camouflaged as a public interest litigation. This Court on numerous occasions negated such efforts in disguising the personal grievances as public interest litigation. It is, however, not necessary to recapitulate the oft quoted caution, save and except the observations made by this Court in the case of Gurpal Singh (supra). In paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 it is observed as follows: "10. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 11. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined "public interest litigation" in its Report of PublicInterest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: 12. "Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts which provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others." [See B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India7 SCC p. 373, para 13.] 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 mala 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 Court's order." The aforesaid observations have been reiterated by this Court in the case of P.Seshadri v. S.Mangati Gopal R eddy and Ors. 8, in the following words:- The High Court has committed a serious error in permitting Respondent No. 1 to pursue the writ petition as a public interest litigation. The parameters within which Public Interest Litigation can be entertained by this Court and the High Court, have been laid down and reiterated by this Court in a series of cases. 8, in the following words:- The High Court has committed a serious error in permitting Respondent No. 1 to pursue the writ petition as a public interest litigation. The parameters within which Public Interest Litigation can be entertained by this Court and the High Court, have been laid down and reiterated by this Court in a series of cases. By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies; having little or No. interest in the proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the Petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard. 8 P. Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and Others, Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 23. We are, therefore, unable to accept the aforesaid submission as it is tantamount to treating the writ petition as a public interest litigation. As noticed above, the entire grievance of the writ Petitioners/Appellants was personal. They were all aggrieved and humiliated for being compelled to serve under a Principal junior to them in service. Therefore, it could not be treated as a public interest litigation. This Court has repeatedly disapproved the tendency of disgruntled employees disguising pure and simple service dispute as public interest litigation. The observations made by this Court in the case of Dr. B. Singh v. U nion of India and Ors. 9 would be of some relevance and we may notice the same. In paragraph 16, it is observed as follows: 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 a large number of so-called public 9 (2004) 4 SCC 363 interest litigations, whereas only 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 a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra8 this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the 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. 21. The ratio of all these judgments is that there must be a public injury and public wrong caused by wrongful or ultra vires acts or omission of the state or a public authority. It is for the enforcement of basic human rights of weaker sections of the community who are poor, downtrodden, ignorant, illiterate and whose fundamental rights and statutory rights have been violated. In fact, it is for compelling the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations. It must not be frivolous litigation by persons having vested interest. The Court can take cognizance of the P.I.L. which involves complainant shocking the judicial conscience. P.I.L. is pro bono publico and should not smack of any ulterior motive and No. person has a right to achieve any ulterior purpose through such litigations. 22. Now, we have to decide the first question on the touchstone of the above judicial pronouncements. The perusal of the writ petition shows that the entire allegation is against one individual, who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 4 in the writ petition. Since the Vice Chancellor was impleaded by name in the writ petition and almost all the allegations are against him, this show that it is a private litigation, and not a public litigation. The prayers are nothing but a camouflage to cover up the tenor of pleadings which clearly show that the entire writ petition is directed towards an individual. In any event, No. public interest is involved in the present case. From the affidavit of the Petitioner dated 30.11.2010 filed to Misc. The prayers are nothing but a camouflage to cover up the tenor of pleadings which clearly show that the entire writ petition is directed towards an individual. In any event, No. public interest is involved in the present case. From the affidavit of the Petitioner dated 30.11.2010 filed to Misc. Case No. 14983 of 2010, it reveals that the Petitioner is very much concerned with the personal and private interest and there is absolutely No. involvement of public interest. 23. It may be relevant to note here that so far as finding of Sri R.C.Behera in his report with regard to appointment of opposite party No. 4 in the post of Professor in Marine Science of Berhampur University is concerned, the controversy has been set at rest for all time to come by judgment dated 20.12.1994 in O.J.C. No. 6964 of 1993 and by judgment dated 18.3.1998 in O.J.C. No. 1425 of 1997 of this Court, and the said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.1998. Therefore, it is not open for the Petitioner to ask for C.B.I. enquiry on that issue. Similarly, the finding of Sri R.C.Behera Inquiry Committee against opp. party No. 4 with regard to financial irregularities like misutilisation and misappropriation of funds, fake and fraudulent research by opp. party No. 4 and scam of corers of rupees in Marine Science Department was dropped as those allegations were not substantiated by the special audit conducted by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Orissa. After careful consideration Government did not accept the suggestion of Shri R.C. Behera and issued letter dated 22.3.2000 to the Hon'ble Chancellor not to act upon the suggestion of Shri R.C. Behera with regard to compulsory retirement of opposite party No. 4. The Hon'ble Chancellor considered the report of Mr. M.S. Padhi and reply of opp. party No. 4 and vide his order dated 19.11.2010 directed the University to take action against the then Vice-Chancellor as per law. Therefore, the Syndicate has to take a decision on that report. 24. Apart from the above, some writ petitions raising grievance against the Berhampur University and Ors. have been filed in this Court and the same are pending disposal. It may be noted here that the University Act provides adequate safeguards against any financial irregularity in the University. Therefore, the Syndicate has to take a decision on that report. 24. Apart from the above, some writ petitions raising grievance against the Berhampur University and Ors. have been filed in this Court and the same are pending disposal. It may be noted here that the University Act provides adequate safeguards against any financial irregularity in the University. Section 23 of the University Act, 1989 provides for audit of accounts. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act provides that the accounts of the University shall at least once in every year and at intervals of not more than fifteen months be audited in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Local Fund Audit Act, 1948. All reports on audit made under Sub-section (1) shall be laid before the State Legislature soon after the receipt of the reports from the examiner of local accounts for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one or more sessions. The State Government has also power to conduct special audit if required in respect of utilization of funds granted by the State Government to a University and such University shall comply with the direction issued by the Government of such audit report. Section 29 of the said Act provides that the Syndicate may remove any person from membership of any of the authorities or other bodies of such University, if he has been convicted by a Court of law of any offence involving moral turpitude or may on the recommendation of the Academic Council withdraw the degree, diploma or mark of honour conferred on or granted to such person by the University for such period as it considers proper if he has been guilty of gross misconduct. 25. In the fact situation, we are of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is not a fit case where direction could be issued for an enquiry by the C.B.I. The question No. (ii) is answered accordingly. 26. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be No. order as to costs. V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. 27. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed