JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. : This writ petition in the shape of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who is claiming to be a famous Odiya Novel writer and also the Proprietor of a Odiya Book Publication unit namely, ‘Pine Books’, challenging the nomination of the Odiya Novel Book “Achinha Basabhumi” written by the author Smt. Kalpana Kumari Devi-O.P. No.8, to receive the ‘Sahitya Academi Award for the year 2011’ and further praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the entire process of selection and nomination of the said Book for receiving the Sahitya Academy Award, which is going to be presented on 14.02.2012 by the Kendriya Sahitya Academy. 2.The case of the petitioner in brief is that the Government of India in its Ministry of Tourism and Culture has made provision for giving Award namely, “Sahitya Academy Award” in the field of Literature each year. As per the Scheme, the Government of India has decided to give the said award to the most outstanding books of literature published in any of the major Indian languages recognized by the Academy. The Government of India for the purpose of selection of the books has constituted an Academy, namely, National Academy of Letters. Further, for the selection of that book, the Government of India has also formulated the ‘Annual Sahitya Akademi Awards Rules’ (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’) suggesting different guidelines for selection of the outstanding books to get the said award. As per the Rules, there shall be an award every year for the most outstanding book of an Indian author published in any of the languages recognized by the Akademi during the three years prior to the year, immediately proceeding the year of the Award. As per the Rules, a book which is to be included for selection must be an outstanding contribution to the language and literature to which it belongs and should be a creative or a critical work, but must not be the other categories of book as specified therein. It is stated that for selecting the books in each State an Executive Body and an Advisory Committee have been formed consisting of eminent writers of the respective states. As per the Rules, each Language Advisory Board member shall be nominated by the President of the Akademi. It is stated that for selecting the books in each State an Executive Body and an Advisory Committee have been formed consisting of eminent writers of the respective states. As per the Rules, each Language Advisory Board member shall be nominated by the President of the Akademi. For the purpose of selection of the book, a ground list shall be prepared which is to be circulated to all the members of the Language Advisory Board including the Convenor and out of the books included in the ground list, the Language Advisory Board shall nominate two books each and ultimately the three member Jury (duly selected by the President of the Akademi) shall nominate a book impartially to receive the said Award. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the book/novel in question i.e. “Achinha Basabhumi” written by the author-O.P. No.8 has been finally selected by the Jury of the State to get the said Award for the year 2011. The ground of attack of the petitioner is that as per Rule 1(1), the selected book for receiving the Award for a particular book must be a first publication in any language during the three years prior to the year, immediately proceeding the year of the Award. Therefore, for 2011 Award, the book must have been published during the year from 2007 to 2009. However, in the instant case, the Book in question has been published at the last part of the year 2010, but the year of publication was manipulated by the Publisher, namely “Kahani/Akshra Publisher” and with the help of the Convenor of the Language Advisory Committee, showing the said Book published in the year 2009, the same was placed in the Committee for selection to get the Award. It is alleged that the same was done in active participation of the Publisher, the writer and the Convenor of the Language Advisory Committee and by that process several other Books which really worth consideration for receiving the Award have been kept away from the zone of consideration. It is alleged that the same was done in active participation of the Publisher, the writer and the Convenor of the Language Advisory Committee and by that process several other Books which really worth consideration for receiving the Award have been kept away from the zone of consideration. Placing reliance upon a copy of the monthly Magazine, namely, ‘Jugashree Jganari’, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writer of the Book in question i.e. O.P. No.8 in an interview had herself given the statement in the month of February, 2010 that for the last around 20 years she had given up writing due to the family burden on her and now she is writing a Novel. From the said statement it is clear that since the year 1986 none of the writings of O.P. No.8-Kalpala Kumari Devi was published, therefore, publication of the present Novel/book in question in the year 2009 appears to be a clear case of manipulation. It is stated that the book in question “Achinha Basabhumi” is also not an outstanding book within the definition of the Rules rather in the said book offending words have been used against the father of the Constitution of India Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as well as there has been use of outraging words against the Caste name of down trodden people which has resulted in picking out serious controversy amongst the people of Odisha. At page 236 of the Book it is written as if Dr. Ambedkar has committed a mistake in drafting the Constitution. Apart from use of such offending language against the father of the Constitution, at several places vulgar languages have been used which will project a very bad picture of the Odiya literature through out the Country. However, despite all these things, the Jury members have nominated the Book in question to receive the Sahitya Akademi Award for the year 2011 notifying the date of presenting the Award on 14.02.2012 at New Delhi during Festival of Letters organized by Sahitya Akademi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in nominating the Book in question, there is clear violation of the Rules and the Book is not worth consideration whatsoever to get the one of the prestigious award like the ‘Sahitya Akademi Award” for the year 2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in nominating the Book in question, there is clear violation of the Rules and the Book is not worth consideration whatsoever to get the one of the prestigious award like the ‘Sahitya Akademi Award” for the year 2011. Therefore, it is prayed that the nomination of the Book in question “Achinha Basabhumi” may be quashed. 4.Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the author of the Book in question-O.P. No.8 invited our attention to the preliminary counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. No.8 opposing the averments as well as the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Patnaik questioning the maintainability of the writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation submits that the petitioner, who is admitting himself to be a famous Odiya Novel writer and also the Proprietor of a Odiya Book Publication unit namely, ‘Pine Books’ cannot file this writ petition in the guise of Public Interest Litigation challenging the nomination of the Book of another author and published by other Publisher. Further neither any public interest is affected nor any injury to the public is caused. Denying the allegations made in the averments of the writ petition it is submitted that, the nomination was made by three members Jury after following due procedure prescribed under the Rules governing the field, therefore, there is no infirmity in the selection of O.P. No.8’s book “Achinha Basabhumi” for National Sahitya Akademi Award. The nomination was done after due deliberation between the Jury appointed by the Akademi. Further the recommendation was made known to public after it was jointly signed by the three members Jury. It is stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the Novel “Aehinha Basabhumi” was not published in the year 2009 and it was published in the year 2010 is not only false but also not based on any record. Placing reliance upon the documents under Annexue-A/8 and B/8 series, it is stated that the Book in question was published in the year 2009 and it was also sold in different book fairs in the different part of the State in the year 2009. In this regard learned Sr. Counsel produced the cash memo from the publisher of the Book showing that the book in question has been sold in the year 2009. In this regard learned Sr. Counsel produced the cash memo from the publisher of the Book showing that the book in question has been sold in the year 2009. Further, placing reliance upon the payment receipts of the book binder and relevant part of the cash book of the year 2009, it is submitted that the book was very much published in the year 2009. Traversing the interpretation of the petitioner regarding the statement of the author-O.P. No.8 published in “Jagashree Juganari” Magazine, it is stated that the interviewer asked the question to the O.P. No.8 about the non-publication of her writings for a long periods since the year 1986 and in answer the O.P. No.8 stated that she had given up writing for last 20 years in between due to his family burden and she also mentioned therein that she had again started writing novel. Therefore, the O.P. No.8 clearly stated that for last 20 years from 1986 she had given up writing of novel that means the author started writing novel from 2006, however, mis-interpreting the interview answers published in the said magazine, the petitioner has wrongly made the averments in the writ petition. With regard to the petitioner’s allegation that at page 236 of the Book the author offended the father of the Constitution of India Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, it is stated that the said allegation is totally false and the petitioner mis-quoted and intentionally translated wrongly and produced the same in the averments. It is stated by the O.P. No.8 that out of total 568 pages of the noval, petitioner has only referred to one page particularly page 236 to blame the O.P. No.8 by half hazardly translating the sentences. The actual sentence used in page 236 is a dialogue of a character and that can never be accepted as a view point of the deponent. In view of the above, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Patnaik on behalf of opposite party No.8 submits that the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition in the guise of Private Interest Litigation but not Public Interest Litigation with some ulterior motive to vandalize the nomination of the Award in favour of O.P. No.8 without any basis. In view of the above, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Patnaik on behalf of opposite party No.8 submits that the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition in the guise of Private Interest Litigation but not Public Interest Litigation with some ulterior motive to vandalize the nomination of the Award in favour of O.P. No.8 without any basis. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition is liable to be rejected being devoid of any merit and further the interim order passed earlier may be vacated so that the O.P. No.8 can get the award on 14.2.2012. 5.Mr. B.M. Patnaik, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Language Advisory Board (Odiya) Sahitya Akademi - O.P. No.4 and Dr. Bibhuti Pattanaik, Convenor (Odiya) Sahitya Akademi-O.P. No.5 supporting the counter statement made on behalf of the opposite party No.8, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. Traversing the allegation made at para 4.13 of the writ petition, Mr. B.M. Patnaik placed reliance upon a English Paper publication in “The Telegraph” wherein in the jury member Chandrasekhar Rath said “At times, many factors for the selection of a work for an award remain unknown to the public. But, since the Akademi has entrusted us with the responsibility, we carried out the job to the best of our ability”. 6.Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel on behalf Sahitya Akademi-O.P. No.7, opposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner submits that the Akademi is an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Culture, Government of India and is working continuously to promote Indian Literature in all its recognized 24 Indian Languages. The selection of book was entirely made by a three member jury committee consisting of eminent Odiya scholars and the final decision has been taken by the Executive Board of the Akademy on the basis of the report of the Jury. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no scope or chance that the Book in question has been selected for the said Award is unworthy one or the selection is in violation of the Rules. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length on merit of the writ petition as well as on the Misc. Case filed by O.P. No.8 for vacating the interim order dated 02.02.2012 and perused the record. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length on merit of the writ petition as well as on the Misc. Case filed by O.P. No.8 for vacating the interim order dated 02.02.2012 and perused the record. On 02.02.2012, as we had not heard the relevant opposite parties, pending consideration of the Misc.Case we passed the interim order. 8.However, with reference to the aforesaid rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the questions arise for consideration in this writ petition are (i) as to whether this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is maintainable ? (ii) as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petition ? (iii) what order ? All the aforesaid points are required to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of opposite parties for the following reasons. 9.First of all this Public Litigation petition filed by the petitioner, who is admitting himself to be a famous author of Odiya language and so also a Publisher of Books, challenging nomination of another author of the Book in question to the Sahitya Akademi Award, 2011 and making allegation against another Publisher. Further, Rule 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, has not been complied with by the petitioner. Rule 8 of the said Rules reads as under : “8. Before filing a PIL, the petitioner must send a representation to the authorities concerned for taking remedial action, akin to what is postulated in Section 80 C.P.C. Details of such representation and reply, if any, from the authority concerned along with copies thereof must be filed with the petition. However, in urgent cases where making of representation and waiting for response would cause irreparable injury or damage, petition can be filed straightway by giving prior notice of filing to the authorities concerned and/or their counsel, if any.” 10.It is the well settled preposition of law that Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation. The purpose of P.I.L. is to promote the public interest which mandates that violation of legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons, poor, down-trodden, ignorant, socially or economically disadvantaged should not go un-redressed. The purpose of P.I.L. is to promote the public interest which mandates that violation of legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons, poor, down-trodden, ignorant, socially or economically disadvantaged should not go un-redressed. The Court can take cognizance in P.I.L. when there are complaints which shocks 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. In S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others., AIR 1982 SC 149 , 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 v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others., 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 116. In Giani Devender Singh Sant Sepoy Sikh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1995 SC 1847 , the Supreme Court has held that the High Court, while entertaining a P.I.L. must indicate how the public interest was involved in the case. In BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others., AIR 2002 SC 350 , the Supreme 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. The Court observed as under :- “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 as a tendency to be counter productive. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and 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. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and 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 abuse of PIL.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others., AIR 2005 SC 894 held as under : “..... Courts should be very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest: in very rare cases where the public at large stand to suffer ....” In M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and others., AIR 2008 SC 913 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “.... 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.....” 11.In the instant case, for nomination of the Book in question to get the Sahitya Akademi Award, 2011 a team of eminent stalwarts in the field of literature have been formed and they have selected/nominated the Book in question written by the author Smt. Kalpana Kumari Devi to be the best Book. One of the Jury Member has clearly stated “At times, many factors for the selection of a work for an award remain unknown to the public. But, since the Akademi has entrusted us with the responsibility, we carried out the job to the best of our ability”. Further, it is stated by the Secretary of the National Sahitya Akademi in his letter dated 8 February, 2012, a copy of which has been produced by Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. But, since the Akademi has entrusted us with the responsibility, we carried out the job to the best of our ability”. Further, it is stated by the Secretary of the National Sahitya Akademi in his letter dated 8 February, 2012, a copy of which has been produced by Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for our perusal, that Akademi is an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Culture, Government of India and is working continuously to promote Indian Literature in all its recognized 24 Indian Languages. The selection of book was entirely made by a three member jury committee consisting of eminent Odiya scholars and the final decision has been taken by the Executive Board of the Akademy on the basis of the report of the Jury. Therefore, it appears that to select/nominate a Book to get the said Award not only the eminent Jury Members but also the Executive Board is also examining in every respect as to whether the Book is worthy to get the award or not. We do not find any basis that in the instant any public injury or public interest at large will be affected if the Book will get the Award. 12.Much reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the various statements of the author and Jury Members in monthly magazine under Annexure-3 and newspaper clippings under Annexures-4 and 5, which are disputed by the opposite parties contending that the all the allegations and interpretation made by the petitioner in the writ petition are false and have been mis-interpreted and having no basis. All the allegations and counter allegations are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into by this Court. It is the well settled legal preposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions that if there are disputed questions of facts the writ Court in exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot go into that. 13.It is further well settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that undoubtedly, the Court does not have expertise in all subjects, therefore, it has to be slow in disturbing the decision taken by the Committee of experts, working in the field, have day to day experience, and which has acquired special skill and special knowledge in the subject and the field. 14.In this regard a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of The University of Mysore and another v. C.D. Govindarao and another., AIR 1965 SC 491 , held that in academic matters where the decision under challenge has been taken by the Committee of Experts, “normally the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts”. 15.In the instant case, as per the Rules, different Experts Bodies and Committees have been formed by the National Sahitya Akademi to select the works of different authors. After the Selection/nomination of the Book by the eminent experts of the Jury Committee, who are the eminent Odiya scholars in the field of literature, again the Executive Board of the National Sahitya Akademi has taken the final decision in the matter and found suitable that the Novel “Achinha Basabhumi” written by the author-O.P. No.8 is worthy to get the Award for the year 2011. 16.In view of the above, this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, who is also an author and Publishers of Books, alleging that the public interest will suffer in the present case is not correct. Considering the entire fact situation of the case and the decisions referred to and reasons stated supra, we are of the considered view that the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 02.02.2012 stands vacated. Misc. Case No.2118 of 2012 is accordingly allowed. As today is the date of award giving ceremony, Mr. S.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the Academy-O.P. No.7 is directed to communicate the order to O.P. No.7 immediately. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.I agree. Ordered accordingly.