JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:-- 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), alleges, (i) that aviation fuel has to be tested to ensure that the water content in the same is within the prescribed norms and standards; (ii) such testing has to be done at various stages i.e. at the laboratory of the Oil Company, at the storage facility of the Oil Company, at the Airport and finally on the field before fuelling of the aircraft; (iii) that the respondent No. 2 Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has in the year 1995 prescribed the method for such testing; (iv) that such tests are vital for the safety of the flights in as much as free water in aviation fuel produces ice-plugging and filter-icing of the fuel system at low temperatures encountered at high altitudes, causing reduction in fuel flow leading to stoppage of fuel flow and consequent partial or total loss of engine power; (v) that the said test involves use of Water Detecting Capsules (WDCs); (vi) the DGCA has however allowed procurement of WDCs which do not conform or adhere to the prescribed test methods; (vii) that one of the suppliers of WDCs namely respondent No. 6 Kaveri Baag Corporation was approved by the DGCA / Director of Air Worthiness in complete and blatant disregard of the testing methods prescribed; (viii) in the year 2008, DGCA stopped granting the approval and renewal of licenses to WDC suppliers and permitted the oil companies and airlines to procure, test and use WDCs as per their Quality Control Manual approved and renewed by DGCA; (ix) thus the oil companies and airlines were required to procure WDCs on their own, thereby passing the onus of ensuring that WDCs met the requisite standard, on to the oil companies; (x) that DGCA could not have so abdicated its responsibility; and, (xi) that the oil companies namely Indian Oil Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited impleaded as respondents No. 3 to 5 are violating the DGCA test method, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the flights / airlines endangering the lives of millions of air passengers. 2. 2. The petition seeks the relief of, (i) holding of an inquiry by an independent agency as to why a sub-standard, non-compliant product not meeting the DGCA test standards and norms was allowed to be used for the last ten years and is continued to be allowed to be used; (ii) of quashing of the Corrigendum dated 14th September, 1995 to the DGCA Test Method of 1995; and, (iii) seeking a direction that the quality, efficiency and standard of Water Detecting Capsules used for detecting free water in aviation fuel shall be regulated and monitored by DGCA alone as was being done till the year 2008. 3. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. The respondent No. 6 Kaveri Baag Corporation and the three respondents oil companies have filed their counter affidavits. The UOI and DGCA have also filed their short affidavit. Rejoinders have been filed by the petitioner. 4. We partly heard the counsels on 27th August, 2014 and were intrigued about the source of knowledge of such technical matters by the petitioner which describes itself as a voluntary organization of senior citizens from all walks of life and which though in the past has not filed any PIL, but claimed to have filed the instant petition on the basis of information received by its members from “a person employed with one of the oil companies during casual conversation”. A doubt arose in our mind as to how knowledge of such technical matters as pleaded in the petition could be acquired during casual conversation. No particulars in this regard were given in the petition. We as such asked the counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit disclosing the source of information and explaining the locus of the petitioner to file the petition. 5. In compliance therewith, an affidavit of the President of the petitioner who is 78 years of age and who has not disclosed his educational qualification / vocation in life in praesenti or in the past has been filed all that is stated therein is that the petition was filed on the basis of information received from one Late Mr. Surajit Chaliha, former Chairman and Managing Director of Oil India Ltd. During casual conversation. However the counsel for the petitioner is unable to inform as to when the said Mr. Chaliha died. The doubts expressed by us thus remain. 6. Surajit Chaliha, former Chairman and Managing Director of Oil India Ltd. During casual conversation. However the counsel for the petitioner is unable to inform as to when the said Mr. Chaliha died. The doubts expressed by us thus remain. 6. The sole proprietor of the respondent No. 6 Kaveri Baag Corporation in his counter affidavit has pleaded that the petition is filed at the behest of one Mr. Kalra who is one of the leading members of the petitioner and a business rival and competitor of the respondent No. 6. The petitioner in the rejoinder of course has denied that the said Mr. Kalra is its member or that the petition has been filed at his behest. 7. Though it is the plea of the respondent No. 6 that such doubts having arisen, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone but during the hearing on 19th November, 2014 it further transpired that the procedure of testing as in vogue prior to the year 2008 was restored as far back as in the year 2012 and the grievance even if any of the petitioner on the said account no longer survives. Of course the counsel for the petitioner contends that the said change was brought about for the reason of the petitioner intervening and states that now he is confining the relief claimed in the petition, to the holding of an inquiry as to why the testing procedure was changed. 8. The counsel for the DGCA also has stated that the role of the DGCA is regulatory, only of setting standards and it is not possible for the DGCA to personally carry out the tests each time an aircraft is fueled. It is further argued that this is the responsibility of the airlines and whenever DGCA finds the airlines to be not performing the duty, it takes action against the airlines as well as the oil companies. 9. We do not in the circumstances aforesaid deem it appropriate to order the inquiry sought for and dispose of the petition. Though we have entertained doubts as to the bona fides of the petitioner but refrain from imposing any costs.