Judgment :- PinakiChandra Ghose : - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the proceedings of approval/renewals granted by 1st respondent vide A.V.22011/5/95-FG (pt.2) dated 18.11.2010 AMO approval validity Ref.Q3/FAA/AMO-03 dated 31.7.2010, Q-3/FAA/568-69, CAR 145 maintenance approval Ref.1194/95-AI(2) and approval in CAR section 2 Airworthiness E Part VII Cat "G" in favour of 3rd respondent are arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Aircraft Act 1934/Aircraft Rules 1937 and against the interest of the nation and public safety and consequently the petitioner sought to set aside the said proceedings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears a bald allegation has been made in the writ petition that the 1st respondent irresponsibly granted approvals/renewals to impart aviation training activities in violation of various Rules of Aircraft Rules, 1937/Aircraft Act, 1934, despite reports of the Vigilance/Intelligence Department and Central Bureau of Investigation's findings and it is dangerous to carry out aviation training/pilot training in and around the thickly populated city like Hyderabad operating from an uncontrolled airfield in an unauthorized and illegal manner. Bald allegations have also been made by the writ petitioner that approvals/renewals have been granted for wrongful gains in collusion with management of the Aviation Training Academy for running aviation training activities/pilot training and the 3rd respondent has been operating its aviation training activities in an illegal manner. It appears that the 3rd respondent-M/s. Flytech Aviation Academy was granted a lease in the year 1996 by the Airport Authorities of India for conducting aviation-training activities, which was expired in 2002 and renewed subsequently by the Airport Authorities of India. On behalf of 1st respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed before us. We have considered the said affidavit and it appears from the said affidavit that the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition for personal benefits. Approval was granted to the 3rd respondent by the Director General of Civil Aviation (1st respondent) only after being satisfied that the operator complied with the Civil Aviation Requirements, Rules and Regulations. Therefore, it cannot be said that there were any irregularities while granting approval/renewal to the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that as per the reports of Vigilance/Intelligence Department and CBI, no investigation reports were filed before the Aviation Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that there were any irregularities while granting approval/renewal to the 3rd respondent. It is further stated that as per the reports of Vigilance/Intelligence Department and CBI, no investigation reports were filed before the Aviation Department. It is further stated that the 1st respondent issued certificates stating that aircraft spare parts were to be imported for training purpose only and no duty concession certificate was issued by the 1st respondent to any organization. Spare parts and components were duly verified by the 1st respondent at the time of physical inspection of those components which were installed on the aircraft. It is further stated that incorrect allegations were made by the writ petitioner on the unknown officials of 1st respondent. It is further stated that on behalf of 1st respondent, no duty concession certificate was ever issued. With regard to CBI enquiry, it is stated that the 1st respondent extended its full co-operation to assist the officials of CBI, as they desired. It is further stated that security clearance was also granted. Accordingly it is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are baseless without any material. It is further stated as follows, "Further, it is pertinent to mention here that W.P. No. 28606 of 2009 has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of AP, Hyderabad is purely a family dispute and viewed that the matter can be settled amicably. Since Smt. G. Bharathi w/o Shri G. Krishnaiah is the mother of Captain Mamtha, who is the Director of M/s. Flytech Aviation Academy and mother-in-law of Sunitha Shakeeli w/o J.V. Mohan. Sunitha Shakeeli is the Director of M/s. Sigma Aviation Academy (AME Institute)." In these circumstances, it is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini with exemplary costs. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by 3rd respondent before us. However, submissions have been made before us on behalf of 3rd respondent and it has been stated that the writ petition has been filed at the behest of relations of 3rd respondent. It is stated that Captain J. Mamatha, who is the first and only woman Chief Flying Instructor of India is one of the principal promoters of Flytech. It is further submitted that mere presence of an airstrip near residential localities would not cause harm or damage to the said localities. It is stated that Captain J. Mamatha, who is the first and only woman Chief Flying Instructor of India is one of the principal promoters of Flytech. It is further submitted that mere presence of an airstrip near residential localities would not cause harm or damage to the said localities. It is further submitted that it is a counter-blast petition which has been filed by the writ petitioner at the instigation of some persons who are involved in the matter pending before a civil Court. Accordingly it is submitted that the writ petition which is filed by the petitioner is nothing, but to take a chance to stall the aviation-training which is being imparted by the Flytech to its members. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after considering the material placed before us, we do not find that there is any material to pass any order on this writ petition. On the contrary, it appears that this Court, on 5.12.2011, directed the petitioner to file a survey report in this matter within four weeks, as it was claimed that the petitioner was conducting a survey of public opinion on the issue of training aircraft crashes. But the petitioner has not complied with the said order and no such report is filed, even though eight months have passed in the meantime. In these circumstances, in our opinion, this writ petition is nothing, but abuse of process of law and it cannot be entertained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 ). In the said decision the Supreme Court, while rejecting the locus of the petitioner, who was a lawyer, to file petition in public interest, observed as under:- "A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. 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." In our opinion, we do not find that there is any reason to entertain this type of bogus litigation in the facts and circumstances of the case and this writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only). After passing this order, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has prayed to reduce the costs to Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only). Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the writ petitioner in favour of A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within two weeks from today.