Judgment S. Manikumar, J. 1. Mr. K.K. Ramesh, Managing Trustee, Tamil Nadu Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Madurai, has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against respondents 3 to 6 herein, as per the Service Rules, by imposing major punishment, for their wilful and deliberate suppression of 6 major quarry scams, while filing a counter affidavit, before the Principal Bench of this Court and thereby cheated the Court, caused huge loss of public money and wasted the precious time of the Court, by considering his representation dated 08.12.2014. 2. Party in person made submissions. At the outset, we wish to record that though he has sought for a prayer, as stated supra, he has not whispered any word on the prayer made. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that Mr.U.Sagayam appointed by the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court, vide order, dated 11.09.2014, made in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, should not enquire into the matter and if he is permitted to proceed with the enquiry, truth would not come to light. 4. He has further submitted that though the Government was aware of the pending cases, in Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the authority, who had filed the counter affidavit to W.P.No.16841 of 2014, filed in the Principal Bench, has suppressed the same, despite voluminous counter affidavits filed in the case. In this context, he invited the attention of this Court, to the typed set of papers, filed along with the present writ petition, wherein, the numbers of the writ petitions, which are pending, are given. 5. According to him, in some of the writ petitions, the prayer sought for, was to appoint a retired High Court Judge, to enquire into the mining activities or for an investigation to be conducted by CBI, and for other prayers. 6. The petitioner has further submitted that Mr.U.Sagayam, was the District Collector, Madurai District, between 22.03.2011 to 28.05.2012, for 14 months. He has not conducted any enquiry. He has not visited the mines, despite several letters, issued by the Government, and that the matter was also published in a newspaper. He has conducted only one meeting. According to him, if Mr.U.Sagayam is permitted to conduct enquiry, truth would not come to light. 7. He has not conducted any enquiry. He has not visited the mines, despite several letters, issued by the Government, and that the matter was also published in a newspaper. He has conducted only one meeting. According to him, if Mr.U.Sagayam is permitted to conduct enquiry, truth would not come to light. 7. After the conclusion of his submission, we asked Mr.K.K.Ramesh, the petitioner herein, as to whether he has any thing more to add. He submitted that apart from the above, there is nothing more to add. Recording the same, we proposed to address the above submissions. 8. As reference has been made to W.P.No.16841 of 2014, we directed the Registry, to place the supporting affidavit in the said writ petition, filed before the Principal Bench and the orders passed thereon. In W.P.No.16841 of 2014, K.R.Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy, has filed a writ petition, for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 therein, to consider and pass appropriate orders, on the representations, dated 25.08.2012, and 15.05.2014, sent by the petitioner therein, for taking appropriate prosecution action, against the illegal mines functioning in the state and their transactions by the 4th respondent, as per Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 and pass orders or any other such orders, as this Hon'ble Court feels it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 9. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai, has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.16841 of 2014. In M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, filed in the Principal Bench of this Court, the petitioner therein, has sought for a direction, to the respondents 5 and 6 therein, to appoint Mr.U.Sagayam I.A.S, Managing Director, Co-optex, as Special Officer, to inspect about the illegal mining, throughout the state and to file a report before this Court, pending disposal of W.P.No.16841 of 2014. 10. Vide order dated 11.09.2014, the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court, has passed the following order:- "The Public Interest Litigation has been filed in respect of the illegal quarrying of mines in 32 Districts. An interim application has been filed seeking direction to respondent Nos.5 and 6, being the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to appoint Mr.U.Sagayam, I.A.S., Managing Director, Co-Optex as Special Officer to inspect the illegal mining through out the State. No reply has been filed to the interlocutory application. 2. An interim application has been filed seeking direction to respondent Nos.5 and 6, being the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to appoint Mr.U.Sagayam, I.A.S., Managing Director, Co-Optex as Special Officer to inspect the illegal mining through out the State. No reply has been filed to the interlocutory application. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the sixth respondent, the State Government itself has stated that they have ordered a detailed enquiry to find out the irregularities and violations in granite quarries in Madurai District by appointing several inspection teams in response to the report sent by Mr.U.Sagayam, IAS., who was the then District Collector, Madurai, on 19.05.2012. The Government claims to have taken various steps thereafter to check the illegalities. 3. On a query, it is informed that Thiru.U.Sagayam, IAS., is now holding the office of Vice Chairman, Science City, Guindy, Chennai 600022. 4. In view of the nature of illegality alleged and also the fact that in this process, even farm lands given to deprived SC and ST section of people are stated to be affected by the quarrying and Thiru.U.Sagayam, IAS, is being the person who filed the initial report in this matter, we consider it appropriate to appoint Thiru.U.Sagayam, as Special Officer/Legal Commissioner to visit and inspect the Mines and submit a report to this Court in order to satisfy ourselves that action is being taken at the sites in question. 5. At this stage, we are not inclined to refer the matter to Central Vigilance Commission, but to examine the matter subsequently, once we have the benefit of the report. 6. The application stands closed with the aforesaid directions and the report be submitted within two months from today. Needless to say that local police authority and the Administration will render all assistance to the officer appointed and the out-of-pocket expenses incurred for travel etc., of the Officer will be borne by the State of Tamil Nadu. 7. A copy of this order be sent to U.Sagayam, I.A.S., Vice Chairman, Science City, Guindy, Chennai 600 022." 11. Challenging the abovesaid order, the State Government, has preferred SLP No.25837 of 2014, and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has dismissed the same. Thereafter, Government of Tamil Nadu, has filed a review petition, before the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court. Review petition, has also been dismissed. Challenging the abovesaid order, the State Government, has preferred SLP No.25837 of 2014, and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has dismissed the same. Thereafter, Government of Tamil Nadu, has filed a review petition, before the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court. Review petition, has also been dismissed. Thereafter, the Government, issued a Government Letter No.8835/MMB.1/2014, dated 31.10.2014, providing infrastructural facilities and security, to Mr.U.Sagayam, I.A.S, so as to enable him, to conduct the enquiry, and submit a report, to the Hon'ble First Bench. 12. At that juncture, Mr.K.K.Ramesh, has filed M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Bench of this Court, to implead him, as 8th respondent, in the said writ petition. In his supporting affidavit, he has cited instances, alleging that Mr.U.Sagayam, has not discharged his duties, properly and that, he is not a honest person. He has also contended that the enquiry conducted by Mr.U.Sagayam, would not be trustworthy. With the above averments, in the supporting affidavit in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, he has averred that W.P.No.16841 of 2014 has to be transferred to Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Supporting affidavit to M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, has been sworn on 27.01.2015. The Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court, vide order, dated 12.03.2015, passed the following order:- "We do not need the assistance of the petitioner to take a decision in the matter and thus, we are not inclined to implead him as a party. We leave it open to be present at the time of hearing of the parties and if we require any assistance, we will seek it from him 2. Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of." 13. Pending disposal of the impleading petition, in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, Mr.K.K.Ramesh, with an affidavit dated 30.01.2015, has filed the present writ petition, for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against respondents 3 to 6 herein, as per the Service Rules, by imposing major punishment, for their wilful and deliberate suppression of 6 major quarry scams, while filing counter affidavit, before the Principal Bench of this Court and thereby cheated the Court, caused huge loss of public money and wasted the precious time of the Court, by considering his representation dated 08.12.2014. 14. 14. The only contention of the petitioner is that Mr.U.Sagayam should not enquire into the matter. In the supporting affidavit to M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, he has mentioned six cases, filed by various persons, including W.P.(MD)No.11237 of 2012, filed by him and also about the news items published. 15. These averments have been already considered by the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court, and his request, to implead himself, as 8th respondent, in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, has been rejected, vide order dated 12.03.2015. 16. No material has been placed, before this Court, as to whether, he has challenged the order made in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, dated 12.03.2015, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While that be the position, once again, he has filed another writ petition, in W.P.No.1468 of 2015, with the above mentioned averments, and added some more. Allegation that there was suppression of pending cases, in the counter affidavit filed in the court, by the authority, in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, filed before the Principal Bench of this Court, has already been taken note of, while rejecting the request of the petitioner, to implead himself, as 8th respondent in W.P.No.16841 of 2014. 17. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner has moved the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court, to implead himself, as 8th respondent in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, and when the said impleading petition was pending, he has filed the present writ petition, in this Court(Madurai Bench), making the very same averments and in our opinion, it is nothing but forum shopping. Appointment of Mr.U.Sagayam, as enquiry officer, by the Hon'ble First Bench in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, dated 11.08.2014, has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Review petition filed by the Government, also has been dismissed. Enquiry is now under progress. 18. The contention that Mr.U.Sagayam has not discharged his duties properly, during his tenure, as a District Collector of Madurai District, between 22.03.2011 to 28.05.2012, for 14 months and that he has not even visited the mines, and the further contention that if he is permitted, to proceed with the enquiry, truth would not come to light, cannot be countenanced, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.25837 of 2014, has already affirmed his appointment to enquire into the matter. The intention of the petitioner, who has claimed himself, to a public interest litigant, to stall the enquiry, does not appear to be bonafide. Repeated petitions, by the same person, with the same averments, made before two Hon'ble Benches of the Madras High Court, taking advantage of the place of residence, cannot be approved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not approved the action of an individual, adopting forum shopping. As regards forum shopping, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions:- (i) In Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, 1998 (4) SCC 577 , the Supreme Court at Paragraph 16, held that, "a litigant cannot be permitted choice of the forum and every attempt at forum shopping must be crushed with a heavy hand. (ii) In Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association vs. S.C. Sekar, 2009 (2) SCC 784 , at Paragraph 51, held that the superior Courts of this Country must discourage forum shopping. A person seeking equity must do equity. A party cannot take recourse to a machination which amounts to abuse of process of Court. (iii) In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (1) CTC 783, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, that ordinarily Court would not permit litigant to revisit issues that had been canvassed earlier as it would lead to speculation and uncertainty in administration of justice and nay lead to forum hunting. (iv) In Rajiv Bhatia vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, 1999 (8) SCC 525 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that after the dismissal of habeas corpus by one High Court, petitioner was not justified in filing another petition before another High Court. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case in Ketan V. Parkesh vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2011 (15) SCC 30, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the appellants in bona fides and indulging in forum shopping. The abovesaid decisions are taken note of, and applied to the facts of this case, for the reason that having failed to get himself impleaded in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, on the very same averments, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, adding something more. 19. The abovesaid decisions are taken note of, and applied to the facts of this case, for the reason that having failed to get himself impleaded in W.P.No.16841 of 2014, on the very same averments, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, adding something more. 19. At the risk of repetition, we once again, reiterate that the petitioner, has not uttered, a single word, regarding any action to be taken, against respondents 2 to 6, for their alleged suppression of many cases, in the counter affidavit, filed to W.P.No.16841 of 2014. 20. The averments made in the present writ petition, make it abundantly clear, that they are made with an intention to stall the enquiry, being conducted by Mr.U.Sagayam, whose appointment, has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in our view, it cannot be permitted. There are absolutely no merits, in the contentions of the petitioner. While disapproving the attempt to stall the enquiry and finding that there are no merits in the writ petition, we dismiss the writ petition. 21. It is sincerely hoped, that in future, persons, who claim themselves, to be pro bono litigants, do not indulge in such practice, thereby, wasting the precious time of this Court, by adverting to the same averments in different form, approach different forums, with different prayers. 22. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.