JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. The fair price shop licence of the fifth respondent was initially suspended by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hasanpur on 13 June 2014. However, by a subsequent order dated 18 June 2014, the order of suspension was lifted subject to a forfeiture of the deposit to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- and a stringent warning. This petition has been filed ostensibly in the public interest for a direction to the District Magistrate to cause an independent enquiry. 2. Following the view which we have taken today in a companion PIL [Public Interest Litigation No. 34951 of 2014 (Raj Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.), we are not inclined to entertain the petition filed in public interest. In our decision, we have referred to an earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 9892 of 2013 (Chhotey Lal Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which has addressed the following caution in entertaining such petitions: "This Court has came across larger number of writ petitions labelled as Public Interest Litigation in which business rivals or persons known to the fair price shop dealer come up with a grievance that the fair price shop dealer should be punished or should be deprived of dealership on account of some irregularities in the allotment of fair price shop or distribution of food-grains. Such writ petitions take up lot of valuable time of this Court and ultimately this Court, in majority of such cases, is left with a clear impression that the litigation was not really in public interest but for seeking some other advantage or for wreaking vengeance. In matters of Public Interest Litigation the Court has to be extra cautious and should not permit adversarial litigation to enter the Superior Courts in the garb of Public Interest Litigation." 3. We have no reason to entertain the petition having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.