Order The present Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioners, who claim to be the RTI Activist and the practising advocate respectively, for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to investigate into the alleged illegal mining/nonpayment of royalty and nonpayment of sales tax by an independent agency such as the CBI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, a project was started by the Damodar Valley Corporation in the district of Koderma for establishing 2x500 MW for meeting the demand of electricity in the entire State of Jharkhand. In furtherance of the same, several contractors were hired by the Damodar Valley Corporation for completion of work in the plant area and in course of construction, the land was to be digged up by the contractors for excavating soil, morrum along with other soil/rock. According to the petitioners, the mineral so excavated have to be handed over to the State Government and if used for commercial purposes, the contractors have to pay royalty to the State Government. The grievance of the petitioners is that the contractors engaged for the construction of KTPP Station has not been paying royalty. According to the petitioners, they have filed an application under RTI before the District Mining Officer, who supplied a letter dated 28.09.2010 providing details of receipt under the head of royalty by various companies engaged in the KTPP Project. Further case of the petitioners is that one company namely, Navyuga Engineering Company Limited, as shown, paid the royalty with penalty and in order to check the same, the petitioners filed another application to obtain a copy of receipts of royalty paid by the said Navyuga Engineering Company Limited. According to the petitioners, though the said Navyuga Engineering Company Limited is said to have paid the royalty amount, but while comparing the information and the receipts, the petitioners came to know that no such payment is received by the District Mining Officer. In this regard, the petitioners have also filed an application before the District Mining Officer to allow to inspect the challans submitted by the Navyuga Engineering Company Limited, but according to the petitioners, only after much efforts some of the challans for payment of royalty by the Navyuga Engineering Company Limited were provided for inspection, but the same did not tally with the total exemption granted. 3. 3. The petitioners further made representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma vide representation dated 06.10.2011. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma appointed a Committee for enquiry and the Committee submitted the report. According to the petitioners, after enquiry, a detailed report was provided by the Enquiry Committee on 10.02.2012, but no action has been taken on the enquiry report and therefore, the petitioners have come forward with this Public Interest Litigation. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Koderma as well as on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 District Mining Officer, Koderma, stating therein the steps taken by the officers. A chart of the amount on different heads of taxes/royalties paid by the companies has also been given in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is also stated that against the demand notice issued by the respondents, M/s Navyuga Engineering Company Limited has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W. P. (C) No. 1675 of 2012 and one M/s Triveni Engicons Pvt. Ltd. has also approached this Court by filing writ petition being W. P. (C) No. 6168 of 2011. This Court has passed the order restraining the respondents for taking any coercive action and the concerned Company was directed to pay 50% of the demand notice. 5. Counter-affidavits filed by the Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 also refers to various steps taken by the concerned respondents for collection of royalty. The chart filed along with the counter-affidavit (Annexure-E) also supports the steps taken by the concerned respondents for collection of the royalty. 6. As such, we do not find any substance in the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents have not taken any steps for collection of the royalty. Though the petitioners have alleged that the respondents have not taken steps for collection of royalty, from the averments made in the counter-affidavit, the petitioners have made specific allegations only against one company and as such, we do not find any public interest involved in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.