Petitioner has styled this petition as a Public Interest Litigation, but it appears that he is trying to seek redressal of his personal interests under the garb of petition-in-hand. 2. It would be worth to mention here that the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of OWP No.436/2012, projecting his personal interest/gain, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.08.2012. 3. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph – ‘j’ of the writ petition hereunder. “J. That the petitioner is a bulk consumer of minor minerals like Sand, Bajri and others and has to bear extra ordinary rates of royalty at the hands of persons who secure bids to collect royalty from the persons using minor minerals out of the river bed falling in cantonment area of Satwari, where the river bed of Tawi has large deposits of minor minerals…...” 4. The Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 (1) Supreme 227 , has held that the Public Interest Litigation cannot be used for personal gain. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph 164, 173, 198(1) and (7) hereunder. “164. In S. P. Gupta’s case (supra), this Court has found that this liberal standard makes it critical to limit standing to individuals “acting bona fide. To avoid entertaining frivolous and vexatious petitions under the guise of PIL, the Court has excluded two groups of persons from obtaining standing in PIL petitions. First, the Supreme Court has rejected awarding standing to “meddlesome interlopers”. Second, the Court has denied standing to interveners bringing public interest litigation for personal gain. 173. In BALCO (supra), this court held that the jurisdiction is being abused by unscrupulous persons for their personal gain. Therefore, the court must take care that the forum be not abused by any person for personal gain. 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. ....... (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” 5. ....... (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” 5. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that this petition merits to be dismissed in limine. Dismissed as such along with all connected CMAs.