JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 31.03.2006 passed by respondent No.4,The Permanent Lok Adalat, District Pali. 3. An application was filed by respondent No.1 before the Permanent Lok Adalat, District Pali respondent No.4, alleging therein that there is no discharge for the rain water and water from houses at Sardar Patel Nagar and Shivaji Nagar , due to which water get spread on the road and cause inconvenience to the people. It is alleged that the said application was filed for the personal benefit of respondent No.1, with out any concern or knowledge of the members of the localities of Shivaji Nagar or Sardar Patel Nagar. The Municipal Council in its reply alleged that there is no house water discharge and only during rain the rain water is accumulated and the people of the specified area and the member of Zila Parishad also objected to the construction of Nala, since there already exists sufficient drainage constructed beside every house. But the Permanent Lok Adalat , respondent No.4, vide its order dated 31.03.2006 ordered to construct the Nala. The petitioners being remedy less preferred a writ petition, challenging the aforesaid order but later on the same was withdrawn, with liberty to prefer public interest litigation. It was averred that since extreme hardships and nuisance is being faced by the petitioners and the local residents by construction of Nala as there already exists proper drainage , it was averred that construction of new drainage shall amount to wastage of public money as well. 4. It was averred that since extreme hardships and nuisance is being faced by the petitioners and the local residents by construction of Nala as there already exists proper drainage , it was averred that construction of new drainage shall amount to wastage of public money as well. 4. Counsel for the petitioners contended that it is very much on record that the local people have objected to the construction of Nala , under such circumstances the Lok Adalat was under obligation to hear the local people, instead of passing the impugned order for construction of Nala, by which the learned Lok Adalat has exceeded its jurisdiction and the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and the Permanent Lok Adalat has exercised the discretionary powers vested in it in an arbitrary manner and in utter disregard to the principles of Natural Justice without affording any opportunity of hearing .It was further contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat has assigned no reasons whatsoever and acted in a capricious manner which has caused a failure of justice and prayed that the impugned order dated 31.03.2006 may be quashed and set aside. He further contended that the impugned order is arbitrary in nature and has been passed against the principles of natural justice. 5. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 6. The impugned order is based on sound appreciation of facts and law and the learned Permanent Lok Adalat considered all the relevant aspects, while passing the impugned order . From the bare reading of facts averred in the petition it appears that the petitioner is pursuing his own interest, rather than the interest of public at large. Petitioner failed to establish as to how the common cause of public has been affected by the impugned orders when it was averred in the interest of the inhabitants of general public ?. 7. Resultantly, we find that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed , being devoid of merits and, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******