Judgment :- T.S. Sivagnanam,J. 1. This is one of the instances, which will show how the concept of 'Public Interest Litigation', which is meant for giving relief to the poor and downtrodden people, is being misused, not only in this case, but in the entire State of Tamil Nadu. 2. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition, designed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to evict the fifth and sixth respondents from the Odai Poromboke land to an extent of 0.70.0 hectare equivalent to 1.73 acres in Survey No.276 and 277/1 of No.77, Kattukottai Village. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is filing this Public Interest Litigation on his behalf and on behalf of the general public, as it was revealed from the revenue records that there is an encroachment by the partners of SDK Sago Factory (respondents 5 and 6) to an extent of 1.73 acres in Survey No.276 and 277/1 of odai poromboke of No.77, Kattukottai Village. It is alleged that respondents 5 and 6 have illegally encroached odai poromboke land to an extent of 0.50.0 hectare in Survey No.277/1 and 0.20.0 hectare out of 0.87.0 hectare in Survey No.276 and established a Shopping Complex as well as a Pollution Treatment Plant (Effluent Treatment Plant ETP) and thippi platform with an electric motor and other machines and a drying yard for the purpose of effectively running the Sago Factory. 4. It is further alleged that respondents 5 and 6 have obtained consent order from the Pollution Control Board as well as got electricity service connection for the ETP, which is established in the encroached survey land. It is also alleged that they have obtained licence from the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Thalaivasal P.O. for running the Sago Factory. 5. Challenging the maintainability of the public interest litigation, respondents 5 and 6 have categorically stated that the Sago factory (now proposed to be converted as Sri. SDK Sago Factory) had been purchased from the petitioner one year back. Originally, the petitioner's father Mr.G.Selvaraj purchased the Cheran Sago Factory along with an extent of 1.01 acres of land in Survey No.277/2 of Kattukotai Village, Attur Taluk from one Mr.Arumuga Gounder and others by registered Document No.1398 of 1983. SDK Sago Factory) had been purchased from the petitioner one year back. Originally, the petitioner's father Mr.G.Selvaraj purchased the Cheran Sago Factory along with an extent of 1.01 acres of land in Survey No.277/2 of Kattukotai Village, Attur Taluk from one Mr.Arumuga Gounder and others by registered Document No.1398 of 1983. Thereafter, a compromise decree was passed in a suit being O.S.No.316 of 1997, whereby the Sago Factory was allotted in the share of the petitioner and his family members and the same was in turn sold to respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that it was the petitioner, who got electricity service connection for the sago factory, after obtaining permission from the Pollution Control Board. 6. In reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has not disputed that the Sago Factory originally belonged to him, and he established the factory after obtaining electricity service connection and the 'no objection certificate' from the Pollution Control Board. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Public Interest Litigation has been filed for the reason that respondents 5 and 6 have encroached some land adjacent to the Sago Factory sold by the petitioner. Even if factually it is accepted to be correct, we fail to comprehend as how a public interest litigation can be filed for that purpose. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in our mind that this is totally a private and vested interest of the petitioner, who after selling the factory, might have had some dispute with respondents 5 and 6 and in order to get some relief against them, the present writ petition, designed as public interest litigation, has been filed. 8. The concept of Public Interest Litigation has been evolved for the welfare of the people who are in a disadvantaged position and are unable to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is Constitutionally bound to protect the Fundamental Rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its Constitutional promises. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India reported in (1982) 2 S.C.C. 494 . 9. The Court is Constitutionally bound to protect the Fundamental Rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its Constitutional promises. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India reported in (1982) 2 S.C.C. 494 . 9. In the case of Balco Employees' Union vs. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333 , the Supreme Court, while discussing the scope and object of Public Interest Litigation, observed as follows:- "77. Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. ‘litigation in the interest of the public’. ... 79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive. 80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re-emphasize the same. ... 88. 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." 10. In the case of Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union of India reported in 1989 Supp (1) S.C.C. 251, the Supreme Court observed that the disputes between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. Similarly, in the case of Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1987) 2 S.C.C. 295 , the Supreme Court observed thus :- "61. Similarly, in the case of Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1987) 2 S.C.C. 295 , the Supreme Court observed thus :- "61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants." 11. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, we totally deprecate the conduct of the petitioner in filing the writ petition as public interest litigation. We have, therefore, no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not come in the way of the District Collector, Salem to proceed with the enquiry on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the fifth respondent being W.P.No.15317 of 2011.