JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral): By means of the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus commanding respondents to raise construction of the building(s), in which Primary Health Centre, Lana Cheta is to be housed, at Lana Cheta, instead of constructing the same at Chewri and also prayed for restraining respondent No.3, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and other Authorities from undertaking any construction work of the said Health Centre at Chewri, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. At the outset, it may be recorded that the writ petition has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, but the same has not been diarised as such. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, being a public spirited person as alleged, has questioned the decision taken by the respondents-State for raising construction of the building for housing Primary Health Centre, Lana Cheta, in Mauza Chewri, on the ground that the decision, so taken by the respondents-State, is not in public interest since the site identified for the construction of the building is not suitable as maximum population of Lana Cheta Panchayat resides in village Lana Cheta. It is averred that the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.227/228, Khasra No.505, situated in Mauza Lana Cheta, has already been donated by one Pankaj and Yashoda Devi, wife of Mulkhia, for the purpose. It is further averred that a civil suit was filed by the people of Chewri, in which respondent No.4 filed reply stating therein that the Primary Health Centre had been notified by the Government at Lana Cheta. 3. Respondents have filed reply. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have specifically pleaded that the land donated by one Pankaj and Yashoda Devi, being a joint and undivided property, was not found suitable for the construction in question. It is further pleaded that the land identified for the construction of the building, comprised in Khasra Nos.239, 241 and 240/2, situated in Mauza Chewri, is part of Gram Panchayat Lana Cheta itself and is suitable for the said construction. Further, they have also pleaded that funds were earmarked for the work in question, but the same could not be utilised because of the on-going civil litigation, which has adversely affected the State exchequer and the interests of the public in general. 4. Further, they have also pleaded that funds were earmarked for the work in question, but the same could not be utilised because of the on-going civil litigation, which has adversely affected the State exchequer and the interests of the public in general. 4. The respondents have further pleaded that in order to identify a suitable site, the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan had also constituted a Committee, which, after inspecting all the sites and keeping in view the interests of the public at large, came to the conclusion that the site comprised in Khasra Nos.239, 241 and 240/2, situated in Mauza Chewri, is the most suitable one as compared to other sites. The Committee during enquiry and while making inspection of the sites, also associated the interested persons including ex Pradhan of Gram Panchayant i.e. writ petitioner. 5. Respondent No.3 has also filed reply, in which it has been stated that the decision to finalise the site for the construction of the building has to be taken by the State Government and that the said respondent has no concern with the dispute, except construction of the building work which can only be started on handing over a suitable site. 6. The moot questions involved in this writ petition are – whether the petitioner can challenge the policy decision taken by the Government and whether the present petition has been filed in public interest or is motivated one or otherwise? 7. Coming to the first question, it has come on the record that a Committee was constituted for the identification of a proper site for the work in question. The said Committee, after inspecting all the sites, came to the conclusion that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.239 and 241, and 240/2, situated in Mauza Chewri, is the most suitable one and serves the larger public interest. The said Committee, as has come on the record, had also associated all the interested persons including the ex Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat i.e. writ petitioner. Thus, the said decision of the Government of constructing Primary Health Centre building at Chewri appears to have been made on the report of a Committee constituted for the purpose and is policy decision, cannot be the subject matter in the writ petition. Neither the decision of the Government nor the report of the Committee has been questioned by the petitioner. Neither the decision of the Government nor the report of the Committee has been questioned by the petitioner. Moreover, the land donated, by way of gift, by one Pankaj and Yashoda Devi is undivided and, therefore, no construction could have been raised on the said land, moreso when the Government had already found a suitable site and had earmarked Rs.50.00 lacs for the construction in question. 8. The petitioner has also not been able to prima facie show or indicate that the decision taken by the Government is arbitrary, unreasonable or is not in larger public interest. 9. It also appears that plaintiffs in two civil suits, after noticing the fate of their cases, have filed this writ petition through Het Ram, which is a malafide exercise, colourable one and afterthought. 10. It is beaten law of the land that the policy decision of the Government cannot be questioned by any person and the Courts cannot interfere with the same, unless it is unreasonable, arbitrary or has malafides. The Apex Court in Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 AIR SCW 1399, has held that policy decision of the Government cannot be interfered with, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 23 of the said decision hereunder: “23. We are also of the view that grant of rebate, exemption or concession is in the natureof policy of the Government. Normally in such policy matters, a court of law will not interfere unless the policy is shown to be contrary to law, inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or otherwise arbitrary or unreasonable. Since, the policy decision as reflected in Clause 3 of Notification No.132/82 cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or inconsistent with statutory provisions, a person claiming the protectionunder the said notification has to comply with the conditions laid down in the notification. As the appellant has been granted benefit of rebate in excise duty as per Clause 3 of the notification, the action cannot be held unlawful and the appellant-society has no reason to make grievance against the action of the Revenue.” 11. As the appellant has been granted benefit of rebate in excise duty as per Clause 3 of the notification, the action cannot be held unlawful and the appellant-society has no reason to make grievance against the action of the Revenue.” 11. The Apex Court in a latest decision reported in Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 616 , also held that interference by the Court on the ground of efficacy of the policy is not permissible. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the said decision as under: “14. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The impugned Policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices.” 12. Coming to the next question, the petitioner has filed this petition as Public Interest Litigation, but the question is - whether there is any public interest involved and what are the credentials of the petitioner? As discussed hereinabove, two suits are pending before the Civil Court involving same issue, which appears to have delayed the construction in question resulting in adversely affecting the State exchequer and interests of public in general, as by the efflux of time, construction cost has increased manifold, is also against the concept of State economy. 13. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has filed the writ petition in public interest, which is not correct. In fact, the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, who was the ex Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat, which is suggestive of the fact that the present petition is the outcome of political considerations and is motivated one. It also appears that the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision taken by the Government, perhaps, for the reason that the work is being executed by new Pradhan, who has stepped into his shoes. 14. It is well settled law that jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked, by way of filing Public Interest Litigation, only in the case where public interest is involved, is not motivated one and is not filed on behalf of some other person. 15. 14. It is well settled law that jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked, by way of filing Public Interest Litigation, only in the case where public interest is involved, is not motivated one and is not filed on behalf of some other person. 15. The Apex Court in the decision reported in S.K. Dasgupta and others vs. Vijay Singh Sengar and others, (2010) 12 SCC 305 , while dealing with Public Interest Litigation, has held that PIL jurisdiction is to be invoked sparingly and with rectitude. It is profitable to reproduce paragraph 13 of the said decision hereinbelow: 13. We must emphasize once again that a Public Interest Litigation is to be invoked sparingly and with rectitude and any order made in this situation must be reasonable and. must not reflect the pique of the Court more particularly as it is not the Courts business to attempt to run the Government in a manner which the Court thinks is the proper way. The" officers of the Board had repeatedly come to Court to explain that the situation was beyond their control and that the short fall in the supply of electric power was not of their making or in their control. The High court ignored this basic fact and passed orders which were incapable of compliance. 16. The Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029, laid down guidelines and tests as to how a writ petition can be treated as Public Interest Litigation. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 198 of the said decision as under: “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 Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. Consequently, we request that the High Courts 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 busybodies 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.” 17. The Apex Court in a case titled as Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan versus State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 6177 held that Public Interest Litigation must serve the basic human rights and in order to prevent misuse, the Court must ensure that genuine public interest is involved . It is profitable to reproduce para 12 of the said judgment hereinbelow: “12. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workeable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of Nonredressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 856 ; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114 : (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 116 : 2010 AIR SCW 50); State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402 : ( AIR 2010 SC 2550 : 2010 AIR SCW 1029); and Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 69 : (2011 AIR SCW 3297)).” 18. The Apex Court in a case titled Kushum Lata versus Union of India and others reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3543 he ld that the writ petition s, which are styled as public interest litigation, but involve private interest, should be thrown out. It is apt to reproduce para 21 of the judgm ent herein: “21. In the instant case, the appellant has styled the petition as PIL though it relates to a tender where she herself claims to be a tenderer. In another petition, questioning legality of the auction, she is a party. The High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition styled as a PIL. We make it clear that Writ Petition No. 349/2003 which is stated to be pending shall be considered on its own perspective in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of the said writ petition.” 19. The Apex Court in the cas e titled as Mrs. Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that a Public Inte rest Litigation cannot be filed on the ground that the Government should have made another decision instead of the decision already made which would hav e been more fair, scientific or logical. It is apt to reproduce para 10 herein: “10. Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that a Public Inte rest Litigation cannot be filed on the ground that the Government should have made another decision instead of the decision already made which would hav e been more fair, scientific or logical. It is apt to reproduce para 10 herein: “10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logical. The principle of reasonableness and nonarbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [ (2000) 8 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 3313 )].” 20. In the case in hand, the pray er sought is to command the State to change the decision already made and make a decision contrary to the sam e. The Apex Court has rightly said that it is the duty of the Court to filter out the false and frivolous cases and ensure that the judiciary is not misused. The pres ent petition is one of that kind of cas e s. 21. The Apex Court in the cas e of M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. versus Prem Chandra Mishra and others report e d in 2008 AIR SCW 343 in paras 1 0 , 18 and 22 has hel d as under: “10. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding 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. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary ( 1992 (4) SCC 305 ) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). 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. {See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, ( AIR 1993 SC 852 ) and K. R. Srinivas v. R. M. Premchand, ( 1994 (6) SCC 620 ). 18. 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 armory 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. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory 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. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. 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 to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 22. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” 22. Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is an afterthought, outcome of malafides, colourable one and aimed at to delay the execution of the work. 23. Having said so, this writ petition merits dismissal and the same is dismissed as such. However, before parting with, we make it clear that any finding record hereinabove shall not influence the Civil Judge while hearing and deciding the civil suits or miscellaneous application. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with all pending CMPs.