Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 510 (JK)

Mehboob Ali Khan v. State Of J&K

2013-09-04

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, TASHI RABSTAN

body2013
Per Mansoor, J. 1. Writ petitioner, Mehboob All Khan, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of present petition, diarized as OWP No. 219/2005 for grant of Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the construction raised by respondent no. 4 upon the land situate at opposite Bahu Plaza, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, belonging to Jammu Development Authority (for short, JDA), and to put the same to auction, or, to use the said land for the purposes of establishment of Green Belt Park; with a further prayer for issuance of Writ of Certiorari quashing the allotment of said land made by JDA, respondent no. 2 herein, in favour of respondent no. 4, on the grounds taken in the petition. 2. Precisely, the case put forth by the writ petitioner is that the land measuring 10 kanals, situate at opposite Bahu Plaza, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, belonging to JDA, was leased out to respondent no. 4 without following due procedure and, thereafter, respondent no. 4 was allowed to raise construction upon the said land in violation of the Master Plan. The said land was not put to open auction thereby causing loss of crores of rupees to the State exchequer. Had the land been put to auction, the petitioner would have also participated in the allotment process. In fact the Building Permission was granted for raising Guest House, however, respondent no. 4 raised the construction for commercial activities. The Excise Department, respondent no. 3 herein, has also in violation of the rules issued the license in favour of respondent no. 4. Thus, it is claimed that respondents 1 to 3 have illegally accommodated respondent no. 4. It is also averred in the petition that many complaints were made to the authorities concerned but without any result, thus the petitioner had no option but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of present writ petition. 3. The present writ petition came to be filed by one Sh. I. H. Bhat, Advocate. For the first time it came up for consideration on 25th April, 2005 when notice was issued. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, waived notice on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned counsel for petitioner was directed to take dasti summons for effecting service upon other respondents. Meanwhile, respondent no. 4 was restrained from raising any further construction. For the first time it came up for consideration on 25th April, 2005 when notice was issued. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, waived notice on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned counsel for petitioner was directed to take dasti summons for effecting service upon other respondents. Meanwhile, respondent no. 4 was restrained from raising any further construction. Vice Chairman, JDA was also asked to take immediate steps to stop the construction and the case was posted for 02.05.2005. On the said date respondent no. 2 filed the status report. However, none appeared on behalf of petitioner. Mr. A. H. Qazi, the then Additional Advocate General and Mr. Adarsh Sharma appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Name of Mr. S. S. Ahmad, Advocate, was also recorded in the title of the order, who was asked to assist the Court. This is how Mr. Ahmad has been appearing in this case. 4. Thereafter, writ petition came up before the Court on 27.05.2005. In paragraph 2 of the said order it was recorded that Mr. Z. A. Shah, appearing for respondent no. 4, made a statement that the averments made in the writ petition were in the nature of public interest litigation. It appears that on the basis of that statement the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for obtaining orders treating the petition as PIL. It would be relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the order herein. "At this stage, Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 submitted that though the petition has been filed by the petitioner in an individual capacity but the averments made in the writ petition are in the nature of public interest litigation." 5. On noticing the said order, Mr. Shah made CMP No. 442/2005 stating therein that he never made such a statement and prayed for correction of order dated 27.05.2005. Accordingly, vide order dated 07.07.2005 the prayer made in the application was granted and paragraph 2 of order dated 27.05.2005 was redrafted. Resultantly, two lines in paragraph 3 of order dated 27.05.2005 also came to be deleted. It would be relevant to reproduce order dated 07.07,2005 herein. "In this application, the prayer made is to correct order dated 27th May'05. It is contended that in para 2 of the said order, it has come to be recorded that Mr. Resultantly, two lines in paragraph 3 of order dated 27.05.2005 also came to be deleted. It would be relevant to reproduce order dated 07.07,2005 herein. "In this application, the prayer made is to correct order dated 27th May'05. It is contended that in para 2 of the said order, it has come to be recorded that Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 submitted that "though the petition has been filed by the petitioner in an individual capacity but the averments made in the writ petition are in the nature of public interest litigation." It is contended that, in fact, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 submitted that the writ petition is not in the nature of a public interest litigation and he be permitted to take this objection before the Division Bench, if the petition is treated as public interest litigation. "In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, para 2 of order dt. 27th May'05 is corrected and it shall now read as under:- At this stage, Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submitted that though this petition has been filed by the petitioner in an individual capacity but the averments made in the petition are not in the nature of public interest litigation and respondent no. 4 be permitted to take such objection as and when the petition is heard on merit." In view of the correction made in para 2 of order dt. 27th May'05, following lines in para 3 shall stand deleted:- "I find merit in the submission made by Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned Senior Advocate..." The correction made above would also require correction in the last paragraph of order dt. 27th May'05. The last paragraph would now read as under:- "The allegations made in the writ petition reflect on the working of the Jammu Development Authority and its functionaries and as such, the writ petition is in the nature of public interest litigation. Petitioner or his counsel has also not appeared, may be, for the reasons best known to them. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this petition be listed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his Lordship's kind consideration for treating it as a public interest litigation. Petitioner or his counsel has also not appeared, may be, for the reasons best known to them. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this petition be listed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his Lordship's kind consideration for treating it as a public interest litigation. Accordingly, registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for obtaining appropriate orders. Mr. Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel, who was asked to assist the court shall continue to do so till the final disposal of the case." 6. Respondent no. 4 questioned both the orders dated 27.05.2005 and 07.07.2005 by the medium of LPA(OW) No. 33/2005, came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2008 and the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration on administrative side. The said order was questioned by respondent no. 4 before the Supreme Court by the medium of SLP (Civil), bearing No. 9253/2008. The Supreme Court vide order dated 02.05.2008 dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn with liberty to respondent no. 4 to urge before the High Court at the time of final hearing of the writ petition that it is not a public interest litigation. 7. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 admitted this petition, but it was made clear that it shall remain open to respondent no.4 to substantiate his stand that the averments made in the writ petition do not involve the question of public interest. It would be appropriate to reproduce last paragraph of the order herein. Mr. Ghanshyam shall file the stance of JDA within four weeks with an advance copy to Mr. Ahmed learned assisting counsel and Mr. Shah learned senior counsel who is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4. Whereafter they shall be free to place their stance within a period of six weeks. Further it shall remain open to respondent no. 4 to substantiate the stand taken by him before learned Single Judge that averments made in the writ petition do not involve the question of public interest for not treating the writ petition as PIL." 8. Respondent no. 2 filed the status reports on 02.05.2005 and 03.01.2009. Respondent no. 4 filed objections on 14.07.2005 and counter on 24.04.2009, whereas respondent no. 3 filed counter on 27.08.2009, Respondent 3 has specifically averred that respondent no. Respondent no. 2 filed the status reports on 02.05.2005 and 03.01.2009. Respondent no. 4 filed objections on 14.07.2005 and counter on 24.04.2009, whereas respondent no. 3 filed counter on 27.08.2009, Respondent 3 has specifically averred that respondent no. 4 while raising the construction complied with the mandate of law and no violation was ever made. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 4 of parawise reply submitted by respondent no. 3 herein. "In reply to the facts stated in para-4 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that one Shri Mushtaq Ahmed Chaya, Managing Director of M/s Jehlum Resorts Private Limited, opposite Bahu Plaza Gandhinagar Extension, Jammu applied on 16.01.2003 for grant of Hotel with Bar Lenience. In the application, the applicant submitted that the Hotel Comprises of 35 centrally air-conditioned deluxe rooms and suits. All room has attached bath and shower, direct dial phones, refrigerator and satellite T.V. It was also stated that Hotel is registered with the Department of Tourism. In view of these submissions, the case of the applicant was got processed and the Deputy Excise Commissioner Executive, Jammu vide office No. 24-C/2339/Exc dated 10.02.2003 was requested to furnish report in the matter. The Deputy Commissioner Excise Jammu processed the case of the applicant in accordance with the J&K Excise Act Samvat, 1958 and rules framed there under and submitted his report to Licensing Authority for grant of licence in favour of the applicant. The licensing authority (Excise Commissioner) after satisfying himself and obtaining prescribed Licence fee granted licence bearing No. 67-HR in favour of the applicant namely Mushtaq Ahmed Chaya S/o Abdul Aziz Chaya R/o 37-B/C Gandhinagar, Jammu under the name and style of M/s Jehlum Resorts Private Limited for the year 2003-04 which stands renewed up to the year 2009-10. It is submitted that as per existing Excise Policy issued by the Government vide order No. 99-F of 2003 dated 07.04.2003 [Refer JKS Soft JKS/5869] the requirements for issuance of Bar Licences are as under:- "(e) The issue of Bar Licences shall apart from the requirements containment in the law and rules be restricted to:- 1. Hotels with not less than ten rooms located at Tourist places. 2. Hotels with not less than twenty five rooms in areas other than Tourist places. Hotels with not less than ten rooms located at Tourist places. 2. Hotels with not less than twenty five rooms in areas other than Tourist places. It is submitted that as per the report of Deputy Excise Commissioner Executive, Jammu the Hotel comprises of 32 rooms and qualified for grant of License as per the Excise Policy in vogue. The Department of Tourism has also declared Jammu as Tourist spot and placed it in "A" category. The Law and Order authorities as well as Civic Authority (JDA) also conveyed their "No objections" to the grant of Licence in favour of the applicant. In view of these facts, the Bar License was issued in favour of respondent no.4 strictly in accordance with existing Excise Policy and as per the norms/rules applicable. No irregularity has been committed while issuing the licence. It is denied that the licence was issued in favour of the respondent no.4 without following any law, as alleged in this para. The licence was granted after following proper procedure and after obtaining necessary certificate from the concerned authorities." 9. Respondent no. 2 in the status report, filed on 02.05.2005, has given in detail how the land-in-question was auctioned and allotted to respondent no.4. It has specifically been averred that the advertisement notice inviting tenders was duly published in the Daily Excelsior in its issue dated 16.05.1998 and respondent no. 4 was the highest bidder. Accordingly, Lease Deed was duly executed in his favour after he deposited the bid amount. Thereafter, he raised the ground and first floors with part basement strictly in terms of the approved plan. However, when the permission for raising second floor was not granted, he approached the J&K Special Tribunal, and the Special Tribunal vide order dated 09.02.2000 set aside the order of respondent no.2, thereby allowing respondent no.4 to complete the construction of second floor after depositing prescribed building permission fee. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 3 of the status report herein. "3. That respondent no.4 applied before the answering respondent for seeking permission for raising second floor and same was not granted on the ground that it is against the approved building bye-laws as per auction notice and lease deed. Only ground + 1st floor was permitted. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 3 of the status report herein. "3. That respondent no.4 applied before the answering respondent for seeking permission for raising second floor and same was not granted on the ground that it is against the approved building bye-laws as per auction notice and lease deed. Only ground + 1st floor was permitted. Respondent no.4 approached the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu against the refusal of the answering respondent, dated 26.11.1999 and Special Tribunal vide its order dated 9.2.2000, allowed the respondent no.4 to complete the construction of second floor. The operative portion of the order passed by the Special Tribunal is reproduced as under:- Applying the principle of non-discrimination, M/s Jehlum Resort (P) Ltd. are allowed to go ahead with the construction of the second color of the building as per the deemed permission. However, the prescribed building permission fee shall have to be deposited by them with the Jammu Development Authority. The file be consigned to record after due completion." 10. Respondent no.2 in the status report, filed on 03.01.2009, has given reply to all the questions raised in order dated 27.05.2005. It has specifically been averred in paragraph 5 thereof that a prestigious commercial complex, namely, Bahu Plaza has already been raised, which is opposite to the land-in-question. Further, it has been averred that after the judgment of Special Tribunal, the case of respondent no.4 was placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 20/22 April, 2000 and the Board of Directors decided to charge 25% extra premium for the construction of one extra floor, besides building permission fee as per building bye-laws. Respondent no.4 accordingly deposited the premium/fee. Thus, the order of Special Tribunal has attained finality. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 5 & 8 of the status report dated 03.01.2009 herein. "5. That in reply to the contents of para no.5, it is submitted with respect that at present the market price of the land in the said area has increased manifold with the passage of time due to Firstly the general escalation of prices of the real estate and IIndly due to coming up of the prestigious Commercial Complex namely Bahu Plaza in that area just adjacent across the road of the said guest house. It is pertinent to mention over here that the sites allotted in favour of the respondent no.4 were allotted in auction through sealed bids in which everybody was at liberty to participate in the auction as per the requirement of the auction notice. In reply to the contents of rest of the para, where there is a reference of auction notice issued by the answering respondent authority for Hotel sites, which was published in the Indian Express (JK Newsline) in its issue on 24.01.1999 wherein the minimum reserve price of Rs.30 lacs per kanal was fixed. It is submitted that in the notice whereby the two sites were allotted in favour of the respondent no.4, the ground coverage was 45% and FAR was 0.9 i.e. only ground plus first floor with 45% coverage was allowed. Whereas in the subsequent notice published in Newspaper on 24.01.1999, referred in this para, the ground coverage was 40% and F.A.R was 1.5 and number of stories allowed were basement plus four (basement +4) meaning thereby in this notice, the authority permitted the concerned to cover the area almost double than that of the area permitted by the answering respondent authority in the earlier auction notice for guest house in favour of the respondent no.4. In view of this, it becomes clear that the minimum reserved price fixed in the subsequent notice/notification referred in this para was Rs.30 lacs almost amounts the same rate/price as fixed for the allotment of site No:7 and 8 in favour of the respondent no.4. It is further pertinent to mention over there that the respondent no.4 offered the price/bid which comes approximately more than 20 lacs per kanal which was held in the year 1998. The Jammu Development Authority, as per the policy matter keeps the last bid amount as minimum reserve price for future auctions in the said area. Pressing into consideration, the said analogy, the minim reserved price kept in subsequent auction notice, is Rs.30 lacs per kanals for the reason, as the coverage area is almost double than that of the coverage area permitted in the earlier auction notice by the answering respondent authority. 6. ...... 7. ...... 8. Pressing into consideration, the said analogy, the minim reserved price kept in subsequent auction notice, is Rs.30 lacs per kanals for the reason, as the coverage area is almost double than that of the coverage area permitted in the earlier auction notice by the answering respondent authority. 6. ...... 7. ...... 8. that in reply to the contents of para no.8, it is respectfully submitted that after the judgment of the Special Tribunal, the case of the respondent no.4 was placed before the Board of Directors in its 59th Board Meeting held on 20/22.04.2000 and the Board of Directors decided to charge 25% extra premium for construction of one extra floor besides building permission fee as per building bye-laws. The respondent no.4 accordingly deposited/paid the building permission fee as well as 25% extra premium for construction of IInd floor. Since the Board of Directors have approved the construction of IInd floor for which the Special Tribunal has returned the findings in favour of the respondent no.4, subject to the payment of 25% extra premium as well as building permission fee and the respondent no.4 has deposited the 25% extra premium to the tune of Rs. 12,34,000/- and Building Permission Fee to the tune of Rs. 17,865/-, as such the order of the Special Tribunal was not assailed. In view of the submissions made above, it is respectfully submitted that there is no loss caused to the authority as well as to State Exchequer as referred in this para." 11. In the preliminary objections filed by respondent no.4 it has been claimed that no case of public interest is involved in the writ petition. He has given in detail how the land was allotted in his favour after he participated in the auction process. He has also placed on record copies of auction notice, allotment letters, lease deed and the documents relating to taking of possession of the land-in-question. He has also given in detail how he raised the construction of ground floor and first floor as well as how he was allowed to raise construction of second floor after he was directed to pay 25% extra premium and building permission fee as per the building bye-laws after the findings returned by the learned Tribunal. 12. In paragraph 2 it has specifically been averred that the construction was raised after the land-in-question was allotted to him in the year 1998. 12. In paragraph 2 it has specifically been averred that the construction was raised after the land-in-question was allotted to him in the year 1998. Now after a lapse of 7 years, i.e., in the year 2005 the present petition came to be filed by some interested persons and unseen hands, who have no locus standi to file same. Further, it has been averred that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, and has been filed with oblique motive and malafide intention. 13. Respondents 1 to 3 also while specifically denying that no benefit was ever given to respondent no.4, stated that since he was the highest bidder, therefore, the land-in-question was allotted to him. It has also been denied that the petitioner changed the nature of construction. 14. It is worthwhile to mention here that Mehboob Ali Khan, in whose name the writ petition has been filed, did not choose to appear or contest the petition right from 25.04.2005. Mr. I. H. Bhat, his learned counsel too after appearing on 25.04.2005 did not choose to appear. 15. Learned Writ Court on the so called statement of Mr. Z. A. Shah, who initially had been appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, prima facie came to the conclusion that the dispute involved in the writ petition was in the nature of public interest and, accordingly, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for treating the writ petition as public interest litigation. 16. While going through the order dated 27.05.2005, it appears the very basis for treating the present petition as public interest litigation was the statement made by Sh. Z. A. Shah, who thereafter himself laid a motion, bearing no.442/2005, thereby categorically denying that he never made such a statement. Thus, he convinced the court to recast order dated 27.05.2005. Accordingly the said order was re-drafted vide order 07.07.2005, reproduced hereinabove. 17. Now the question arises for consideration is: whether after recasting the order, the writ petition can still be treated as public interest litigation? 18. Right from the very beginning respondent no.4 has been clamouring that it is not public interest litigation but purely a petition filed by a person in individual capacity with vested interest just to harass him, who came to the court after seven years of the allotment of the land-in-question. The litigation is borrowed one and somebody is behind it. 19. Right from the very beginning respondent no.4 has been clamouring that it is not public interest litigation but purely a petition filed by a person in individual capacity with vested interest just to harass him, who came to the court after seven years of the allotment of the land-in-question. The litigation is borrowed one and somebody is behind it. 19. The specific stand taken by respondent no.4 has not been decided by the Writ Court or the Division Bench, nor by the Apex Court, but the question has been left open, to be decided at the time of final hearing of the petition. 20. While going through the writ petition, it appears the basic relief sought is that the allotment made be cancelled, the land-in-question be put to auction and all the persons including writ petitioner and respondent no.4 be allowed to participate in the auction proceedings. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 6 of the writ petition herein. "6. That the petitioner, had the land been put to open auction, would have also applied for allotment of the same and competed. Since the land was allotted in a clandestinely, illegally and without issuance of any public notice and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of his right to compete the same." 21. This paragraph itself gives the motive and personal interest behind the case. Why the writ petitioner or his counsel has not been appearing right from 25.04.2005 is not forthcoming, only court counsel is assisting the court. 22. If at all any person was aggrieved of the allotment made in the year 1998, why did not he question the same at the time of handing over/taking over possession of the land-in-question or at the time of sanction of site plan or raising of construction right from 1998 till 20.04.2005. Why the writ petition has been filed by an unknown person, that too after a lapse of seven years and why did he or his counsel not choose to contest the case right from 25.04.2005? Further, the writ petitioner never opted to question the order of Special Tribunal and the decisions taken by the Board of Directors. 23. Admittedly, respondent no.4 was the highest bidder. He has invested huge amount in raising the construction. Can a writ be filed after a lapse of seven years and can it be treated as public interest litigation, speaks of many things. 24. 23. Admittedly, respondent no.4 was the highest bidder. He has invested huge amount in raising the construction. Can a writ be filed after a lapse of seven years and can it be treated as public interest litigation, speaks of many things. 24. All the officials have specifically averred that they never showered any favour or gave any advantage to respondent no.4. He participated in the auction process, was the highest bidder, so the land-in-question was allotted in his favour and nobody questioned the bid at that particular point of time. 25. It would be appropriate to record herein that respondent no.2 has specifically averred that notice-inviting-tenders was published in the Daily Excelsior in its issue dated 16.05.1998. It has wide circulation and a reputed newspaper. Now, how could it be said that the allotment was made clandestinely, illegally and without issuing public notice. 26. Official respondents have claimed that only after respondent no.4 completed all the requisite formalities, they allotted license in his favour. Respondent no.2 has also stated in the reply that a prestigious commercial complex, namely, Bahu Plaza has also come up opposite to the complex in question. So, admittedly the area is commercial one. 27. While advancing the arguments, Mr. Adarsh Sharma claimed that not only Bahu Plaza has come up there, but four more commercial complexes, namely, T. R. Gupta (basement + ground floor + 5 stories), Gupta Tower (basement + ground floor + 3 stories), Vishal Mega Mart (ground floor + 2 stories) and J&K Bank (ground + 4 stories) have also come up in the same vicinity. 28. The Apex Court in Kushum Lata v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2643 , has held that a petition which involves private interest cannot be treated as public interest litigation. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 18, 19 & 20 herein. "18. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981 Supp. SCC 87), it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busy-body or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. "18. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981 Supp. SCC 87), it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busy-body or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p. 219, para 24) "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective." 19. In State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors. ( 1985 (3) SCC 169 ) it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. 20. These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) (3) SCC 349) and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors. ( 2004 (3) SCC 363 ) and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ( 2005 (1) SCC 590 )." 29. The Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 AIR SCW 1029, while dealing with the origin and development of public interest litigation has given in detail how to preserve purity and sanctity of PIL. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 198 herein. "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. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Court's who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. Consequently, we request that the High Court's who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (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. (8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busy bodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations." 30. In paragraph 198(3) it has specifically been held that the Courts have to verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining public interest litigation. The Apex Court has dealt with in detail how to preserve the purity and sanctity of PIL while holding that it is mandatory, rather imperative to test a petition in terms of the guidelines and directions contained in paragraph 198 (supra). 31. Paragraph 198(3) (supra) specifically provides that the Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner. In the present case petitioner has not been appearing before the Court right from 25.04.2005 and what are his credentials are not known. 32. The Apex Court in Ayubkhan Nookhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 AIR SCW 6177, has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that genuinely a public interest is involved in public interest litigation and that there is no abuse of process of court. 33. 32. The Apex Court in Ayubkhan Nookhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 AIR SCW 6177, has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that genuinely a public interest is involved in public interest litigation and that there is no abuse of process of court. 33. Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove read with the relief sought in the writ petition, it is held that no public interest is involved in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMA(s), if any. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.