Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed as a probono publico praying for a direction to the official respondents to immediately inspect the Thandukaradu Hill area situated at Survey Field No.176 of Pottanam Village (No.43), Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District and its surrounding areas and take suitable action against the Miners and Crushers in the Pottanam village and surrounding areas and to initiate appropriate remedial and preventive measures to protect the village residents and environment in the Pottanam village and surrounding areas. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Pottanam village of Namakkal Taluk, wherein illegal and unauthorized quarrying and stone crushing activities are going on; that from the year 1995 onwards, the presence of quarrying and stone crushing activities appeared in Thandukaradu hill area located in Survey Field No.176 of Pottanam Revenue Village (No.43) and mining and crushing activities are going on either side of the mountain and these activities later progressed multifold and now quarries and crusher units operate within meters of households and at present there are eight illegal quarries and several crushing units in this hill area and on the other side of the hill within 300 meters there is another residential village called 'Salaiyur', which has elementary school, temple, bus stop, sago factory etc. and there are about 24 water bodies surrounding the said Thandukaradu hill. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the quarries and crusher units in the area operate illegally and they use explosives day and night for mining; that the stone crushers run non-stop day and night, creating noise, fly ash and heavy vibrations; that the explosions and vibrations caused damages to many houses in the village like cracks, roof breakages etc.; that the sound of explosion is so severe that the families in the village are unable to sleep at night; that fly ash and dust particles emanating from the crushers severely affect air quality and many residents suffer from respiratory and related illness and the dust gets deposited in drinking water area, wells, cattle feeding waters and also destroys the flora and fauna development. According to the petitioner, he came to know that few of the miners and crushers actually obtained permission from authorities by submitting false facts for carrying on mining and crushing work in the area. 4. According to the petitioner, he came to know that few of the miners and crushers actually obtained permission from authorities by submitting false facts for carrying on mining and crushing work in the area. 4. As the original writ petition was filed without impleading the quarry/crusher owners, even though allegations are made against them, we posed a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the quarry/crusher owners were not made party respondents to this writ petition, so as to hear them also. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an impleadment petition in M.P.No.1 of 2012, seeking to bring on record respondents 8 and 9/quarry owners as party respondents, further stating that he was able to collect the names of only these two quarry owners in spite of his best and sincere efforts. We allowed the said impleadment petition on 21.8.2012, thus bringing on record the respondents 8 and 9. 5. The respondents 8 and 9 have filed their separate and vivid counter affidavits denying all the allegations of the petitioner and further stating that the very writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to settle his personal scores with them, since on an earlier occasion, the 8th respondent herein had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6454 of 2011 before this Court praying for a direction to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the District Environmental Engineer of Namakkal to close the two sago factories viz. (1) M/s. Ayyammal Sago Factory and (2) M/s.Vanitha Sago Factory, belonging to the family members of the petitioner, wherein this Court directed the authorities to consider the representations sent by the petitioner therein and pass orders on merits and as per law, pursuant to which action has been initiated against the said two sago factories for non-compliance of pollution control norms. 6. On behalf of the fourth respondent/Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also a separate and vivid counter affidavit has been filed stating that there are no unauthorized or illegal stone crushers in Pottanam village or in nearby villages and all the five stone crushers located in Pottanam village near Thandukaradu Hillock have obtained consent order of the Board under the Water (C&CP) Act, 1974 and the Air (C&CP) Act, 1981, submitting the requisite details such as plan, topo sketch, air pollution control measures and copy of land deed etc. and none of the documents submitted by the crusher units are claimed to be false by any person, other than the petitioner herein. It has also been submitted by them that permission for the mining activities are granted by the Department of Mining and Geology and the stone crushers have installed dust control measures such as metal sheet coverings around the crusher and sieve machineries and water sprinkling systems and fly ash is not emitted from stone crushing units and therefore, there is no possibility of dust spreading over to the village or agricultural lands. 7. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side, who argued drawing support from the respective counter affidavits of the parties. Even the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 6 have endorsed the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the Pollution Control Board/R.4. 8. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, nothing adverse has ever been noted against the respondents 8 and 9 by the authorities concerned. In fact, the Pollution Control Board, through its counter, has given clean chit with regard to the activities of crushers in the locality including the respondents 8 and 9, saying that there are no unauthorized stone crushers in Pottanam village or in nearby villages, further specifically denying the allegations made by the petitioner. 9. In the long affidavit, except throwing mud on the crushers in the locality (which, as could be seen from the counter affidavit of the Pollution Control Board, are proved to be false allegations) the petitioner has not revealed anything about his association with the Sago factories. But, on the other hand, the respondents 8 and 9 are able to establish that the two sago factories are belonging to the family members of the petitioner himself and originally, the two factories were owned by the father-in-law of the writ petitioner viz. Nainamalai Udayar and the two factories were operated with the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board from 1988 to 1991 and thereafter, no consent was obtained to operate the units. Nainamalai Udayar and the two factories were operated with the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board from 1988 to 1991 and thereafter, no consent was obtained to operate the units. Out of the two units, one unit by name M/s.Ayyammal Sago Factory belongs to the son of the petitioner and it is located in S.F.No.168/1 and 168/2A and another Sago factory by name M/s.Vanitha Sago Factory belongs to the wife of the writ petitioner and it is located in S.F.No.185/3C, 3D and 184/4 and 185/8. On the allegation that from 1991 onwards, the petitioner and his family are running the two sago factories without consent of the Pollution Control Board and without installing the trade effluent treatment plant and were discharging trade effluents without any treatment, thus polluting the agricultural lands and wells, the 8th respondent herein, to be specific Mrs.V.Indirani, has filed W.P.No.6454 of 2011 before this Court as against the said two Sago factories, seeking a direction from this Court to the Pollution Control Board to close the said units. Pursuant to a direction of this Court, dated 21.3.2011, (speaking through one of us, Justice Elipe Dharma Rao) to the Pollution Control Board to consider the representation of the petitioner therein, the above said M/s.Ayyammal Sago Factory was directed to be closed by the Pollution Control Board, by the order dated 19.8.2011, but no closure order was passed in respect of the other sago factory by name M/s.Vanitha Sago Factory, since it has stopped operation by then. Subsequently, in view of the subsequent compliance of installation of Trade Effluent Treatment Plant in M/s.Ayyammal Sago Factory, the Pollution Control Board revoked the closure order. But, it seems, so far the consent has not been obtained by M/s.Ayyammal Sago Factory, run by the son of the petitioner. 10. From the above particulars and discussions, it is clear that the petitioner is trying to take revenge against the respondents 8 and 9 and trying to settle his personal scores under the garb of this probono publico, since, only at the behest of the 8th respondent the sago factories of the petitioner faced troubles and litigations. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and no public interest is involved in this writ petition, except the personal interest of the petitioner. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and no public interest is involved in this writ petition, except the personal interest of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs, as the petitioner has wasted the valuable public time of this Court, by filing this vexatious personal interest litigation. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/= (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today, failing which the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority is directed to take all necessary legal steps for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner.