Judgment Dr. A.K. Rath, J. The attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation has propelled some persons to approach the High Court for their personal gain or private profit with oblique motive. This case is a glaring example how the process of Court has been abused by the petitioners for furtherance for their personal gain and private profit. 2. The short facts of the case of the petitioners are that M/s. ORBIT Motors Pvt. Limited, Rourkela-opposite party no.3 applied for a plot measuring an area of Ac.0.650 dec. in front of its existing shop in the Civil Township, Rourkela Town Unit No.42 for construction of work shop and machineries, for which two lease cases, i.e., Case Nos.14 of 2006 and 15 of 2006 were initiated. Since the land applied for was coming under the Green Belt area, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, whose office exists adjacent to the said plot, raised objections before the competent authority not to allot the same area. The local public also lodged complaint before the Rourkela Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the RDA”) and Rourkela Land Allotment Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the LAC”), opposite parties 1 and 2. Considering the objections, opposite parties 1 and 2 cancelled the lease application and advised opposite party no.3 to apply for any other plot. Again opposite party no.3 applied for the lease of Ac.0.650 dec. in the same area. The said plot was classified as public zone and semi public zone. The LAC, opposite party no.2 rejected the application holding that the plots were coming under the public zone and semi public zone. Thereafter, opposite party no.3 laid a consumer dispute before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was registered as C.D. Case No.17 of 2008. Challenging, inter alia, initiation of consumer disputes before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.2757 of 2009, before this Court. On 18.5.2009 this Court disposed of the writ petition holding inter alia that the matter does not come under the purview of consumer disputes and disposed of the said writ petition. The further case of the petitioners is that though on earlier two occasions, applications of opposite party no.3 was rejected, but for the third time, the same was considered. On 18.5.2009 this Court disposed of the writ petition holding inter alia that the matter does not come under the purview of consumer disputes and disposed of the said writ petition. The further case of the petitioners is that though on earlier two occasions, applications of opposite party no.3 was rejected, but for the third time, the same was considered. The classification of the land was changed from public zone and semi public zone to commercial zone by holding the LAC meeting on 13.9.2010. A decision was taken to allot an area of Ac.0.650 dec. of land and adjust the price paid earlier by opposite party no.3 in Lease Case Nos.14 of 2006 and 15 of 2006. Opposite party no.1 published the matter in extra-ordinary issue of Orissa Gazette, vide letter no.3061/RDA. dated 26.6.2010 and in daily newspapers under letter No.4652/R.D.A. dated 5.3.2010 inviting objections and suggestions from the general public. The same modified the Interim Development Plan of Rourkela Civil Township by way of change of land use from public and semipublic zone to commercial zone. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 had filed objection before opposite party no.1 stating that he had interest over the land, as he was the power of attorney holder. Further the compensation was not paid for the land. As per the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, the displaced families are to be given first priority for allotting the land and in the event the land is allotted, the petitioners and their family members would pay the market price, since they have no suitable house. A prayer was made not to change the land use from public and semi-public zone to commercial zone for the greater public interest. Without hearing objection filed by petitioner no.1, the land was allotted to opposite party no.3. It is further stated that the market value of the land was Rs.60,000/-in the year 1999-2000 and at the time of allotment, the price was Rs.3,34,000/-per dec. The present market value is Rs.5,00,000/-per dec. but opposite parties 1 and 2 allotted the land on 9.12.2013 measuring an area of Ac.0.650 dec. appertaining to khata 111, plot no.12/part A0.245, plot no.29/328/P A0.005 and plot no.12/part, A0.030, plot no.21/part A0.060 and plot no.29/328/part, A0.310 of village RTU No.42 at a price of Rs.39,00,000/-. After the correction of record of rights, patta was issued in favour of opposite party no.3 in the year 2014. appertaining to khata 111, plot no.12/part A0.245, plot no.29/328/P A0.005 and plot no.12/part, A0.030, plot no.21/part A0.060 and plot no.29/328/part, A0.310 of village RTU No.42 at a price of Rs.39,00,000/-. After the correction of record of rights, patta was issued in favour of opposite party no.3 in the year 2014. With this factual scenario, a prayer has been made to cancel the lease granted in favour of opposite party no.3 in Lease Case Nos.14 of 2006 and 15 of 2006 and to direct the opposite party nos.1 and 2 to stop construction over the land. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 have filed their respective counter affidavits. 4. Case of opposite party no.1 is that in the 12th Authority Meeting dated 1.5.2010 of the RDA, it was resolved to send the proposal of changing the use zone of RTU No.42 from public and semi-public zone to commercial zone for approval. Accordingly, opposite party no.1 issued notification on 26.6.2010 inviting objections and suggestions for change of use zone. Opposite party no.1 sent letter to the Government forwarding the original notification for publishing the same in the extra ordinary issue of Orissa Gazette. In the extra ordinary Gazette No.1055 dated 7.7.2010, the notification was published in Orissa Gazette inviting objections within sixty days. The notification was also published in daily newspapers, New Indian Express on 7.8.2010 and in daily Samaj on 8.8.2010. Since no objection was received within sixty days, the change of use zone was duly recommended to the Government on 18.4.2011 for approval. The recommendation of opposite party no.1 was also forwarded by the Director Town Planning of Orissa, Bhubaneswar on 8.6.2011 to the Government for approval. By letter no.2106/HUD dated 21.1.2012, the Deputy Secretary to Government in H & U.D. Department approved the same. 5. The stand of opposite party no.2 is that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners in the nature of PIL is not in consonance with the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. The petitioners have not followed Rule-7 and 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that opposite party no.3 had applied for land in the district of Sundargarh to open a show room and Service-cum-Repairing Centre of four wheelers of Maruti Company. The petitioners have not followed Rule-7 and 8 of the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that opposite party no.3 had applied for land in the district of Sundargarh to open a show room and Service-cum-Repairing Centre of four wheelers of Maruti Company. Application filed by opposite party no.3 was numbered as Lease Case No.4 of 2001. After following due procedure of law, an area of Ac.0.250 dec. was allotted in favour of opposite party no.3 on 1.2.2001 for construction of show room subject to premium of @Rs.60 lakhs per acre under OGLS Act. Subsequently, on the basis of another application filed by opposite party no.3, an area of Ac.0.400 dec. was allotted in favour of opposite party no.3 on 3.6.2003. The aforesaid allotments were made by the committee headed by RDC (ND), Sambalpur, Collector, Sundargarh and ADM, Rourkela. The premium was fixed @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, opposite party no.3 deposited rupees twenty four lakhs for Ac.0.400 dec, rupees fifteen lakhs for Ac.0.250 dec. of land. On payment of premium, lease deed was executed on 3.6.2003. Thereafter, opposite party no.3 carried out business over the leasehold land. While the matter stood thus, the LAC headed by RDC (ND), Sambalpur found that there were serious irregularities in allotting the land as the said land was earmarked for Green Belt. Accordingly, LAC prima facie was satisfied that allotment was not permissible for commercial purpose. Opportunity of hearing was also given to opposite party no.3 before cancellation of lease. The LAC finally took a decision to cancel the lease granted in favour of opposite party no.3 in Lease Case No.4 of 2001. The LAC took a decision that another plot will be provided to opposite party no.3 in lieu of cancellation of lease. Accordingly, the LAC passed an order of cancellation and communicated the same on 23.4.2005. Soon after cancellation, opposite party no.3 had filed an application in Form No.1 under the OGLS Act for grant of lease on 21.1.2006. On the basis of said application, Lease Case No.14 of 2006 was registered. In the said application, opposite party no.3 had prayed for grant of lease in respect of total area of Ac.0.250 dec.. Soon after cancellation, opposite party no.3 had filed an application in Form No.1 under the OGLS Act for grant of lease on 21.1.2006. On the basis of said application, Lease Case No.14 of 2006 was registered. In the said application, opposite party no.3 had prayed for grant of lease in respect of total area of Ac.0.250 dec.. On the very day also opposite party no.3 had filed another application for grant of lease in respect of total area of Ac.0.400 dec., whereafter Lease Case No.15 of 2006 was registered. Both the applications were placed before the LAC in its meeting dated 13.9.2010. The Committee decided to allot plot no.12-P, 29/328 (Part), 12, 21-P, 29/238 appertaining to khata no.111, village/RTU No.42,total area Ac.0.650 dec. in favour of opposite party no.3subject to completion of formalities for change of land use. The committee took a decision that the land premium paid by opposite party no.3 will be adjusted but he has to pay the Stamp Duty and registration fee. As per the decision of the Committee, Secretary, RDA issued Gazette Notification on 26.6.2010 inviting objection/suggestion within 60 days from the date of publication of notification. Pursuant to Gazette Notification, no objection/suggestion was filed within 60days of the notification. Since no objection/suggestion was received, the Secretary, RDA recommended the same to Government for changing of land use from public and semipublic zone to commercial zone. Subsequently, the Government of Orissa, H & UD Department approved the proposal of Secretary, RDA and changed the use of land from public and semi public zone to commercial use zone. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 has filed the objection before the Secretary, RDA on 5.10.2010, which is after expiry of 60 days. So thus the question of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.1 did not arise. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 filed an objection before the competent authority (opposite party no.1) stating therein that he had interest over the land as he was the power of attorney holder and compensation was not paid for the land to the original owner of land as per law under OGLS Act, the displaced families are to be given first priority for allotting the land and if the land be allotted, then petitioners and their family members would pay the market price and not to change the land use to commercial zone. The petitioner no.1 has some personal interest over the land. The further case of opposite party no.2 is that apart from allotting an area of Ac.0.650 dec. in favour of opposite party no.3, Ac.0.500 was allotted in favour of M/s. Koshal Udyod, Rourkela. Both the allottees deposited premium and executed sale deed. Thereafter, possession was handed over to them. The land cost was calculated at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre, which was prevailing then. Consequent upon the objection raised by the Assistant Provident Commissioner, whose office building exists to the adjoining area, the LAC in its meeting held on 17.6.2004 cancelled the allotment being in Green Belt area of the Master Plan of Rourkela and instructed the parties to select alternate sites for allotment in exchange of the earlier allotment. Parties applied again. Since the selected areas, which were found to be in public and semi public zone of the Master Plan, opposite party no. 1 was requested to change the status of lease hold land. It is further stated that both the lease deeds were executed after payment of stamp duty and the allotments were considered in exchange of earlier allotment after obtaining approval of the land status from the Government in H & UD Department. 6. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the writ petition, opposite party no.3 has taken the similar stand to that of opposite party no.2. 7. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed controverting the allegations made in the counter. 8. Heard Mr. B.K. Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned Advocate for opposite party no.1 and Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.3. 9. The seminal point that hinges for our consideration is as to whether, the writ petition, which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, is maintainable. 10. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned Advocate for opposite party no.1 and Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.3. 9. The seminal point that hinges for our consideration is as to whether, the writ petition, which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, is maintainable. 10. In paragraph 4.6 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that petitioner no.1, power of attorney holder of the original owner, filed an objection before the competent authority (opposite party no.1) stating therein that the petitioner has interest over the land and the compensation has not been paid to the original owner, under O.G.L.S. Act to the displaced families would be given first priority in the event the land is allotted, the petitioners and their family members would pay the market price as they have no suitable house of their own. They have prayed not to change the land use from public and semi public zone to commercial zone for the greater public interest. 11. The apex Court came down heavily against entertaining of PIL for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. In recent years, there is a feeling that Public Interest Litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest and has a tendency to be counter productive. Misuse of PIL by the litigants has drawn the attention of the apex Court in number of times. The apex Court consistently held that when there is no material to show that the petition styled as PIL is a camouflage to foster personal disputes. The said petition is to be thrown out. 12. The parameters have been laid down by the apex Court in BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vrs. Union of India and others, AIR 2002 SC 350 . In paragraphs 76 to 79 of the said report, it is held as follows:- “76. Public Interest Litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian Judicial process in 1970. 12. The parameters have been laid down by the apex Court in BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vrs. Union of India and others, AIR 2002 SC 350 . In paragraphs 76 to 79 of the said report, it is held as follows:- “76. Public Interest Litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian Judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the Court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., ‘litigation in the interest of the public. 77. While PIL initially was involved mostly incases connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitioners have been entertained in other spheres, Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in following words:- “PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive: Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates). Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (Women, Children, bonded labour unorganized labour etc.). Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes) Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievance redressal forums). Where administrative decision related to development are harmful to the resources such as air or water. 78. Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes) Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievance redressal forums). Where administrative decision related to development are harmful to the resources such as air or water. 78. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that Public Interest Litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counter productive. 79. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a Petitioner and entertained by the Court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re-emphasize the same.” 13. In Kushum Lata Vrs. Union of India and others, (2006) 6 S.C.C. 180 , the apex Court sounded a caution in entertaining frivolous PIL and held that the 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 apex Court further held that when genuine litigants with legitimate grievances are standing in along serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as aproxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said report are quoted hereunder:- “12. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said report are quoted hereunder:- “12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters –government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddle some interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 13. 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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury 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, the court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bonafide 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.” 14. In State of Uttaranchal Vrs. Balwant Singh Chaufaland others, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 402, the apex Court held that 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. (emphasis is ours) 15. On the anvil of the decisions cited (supra), we have carefully and meticulously examined the pleadings of the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. As would be evident from paragraph 4.6 of the writ petition, the petitioners have substantially interest over the land in question and fruits of the litigation. The same can by no stretch of imagination be termed as PIL. The present writ petition, which is styled as PIL, is a camouflage to foster personal disputes. 16. On taking a holistic view of the matter, we are on ad idem that the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-(One Thousand). Amitava Roy, C.J. I agree.