JUDGMENT By the Court.—This petition has been filed purportedly in the public interest by a teacher for quashing the tender notices dated 16 June 2015 and 2 July 2015 issued by the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (the Development Authority). The first tender notice is for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) of solar LED lighting in the historic Company Bagh at Allahabad, while the second tender notice is for SITC of 9 mts. solar LED High Mast lighting in the parks maintained by the Development Authority. A further relief that has been claimed in this petition is that the Development Authority should revise the ‘item-wise’ rate of different materials after conducting a proper inquiry or market research. 2. The aforesaid tender notices have been issued by the Development Authority in connection with the restoration and beautification of the Company Bagh and other parks in Allahabad pursuant to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 51055 of 2014, Madhu Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 others. The said petition was filed by a lecturer in Kamlesh Yadav Degree College, Jhunsi emphasising (i) the absence of security; (ii) encroachments within and immediately outside the park; (iii) the uncontrolled activities of vendors selling eatables outside and inside the park; (iv) absence of any check on the large number of stray animals and the entry of pet dogs; (v) absence of basic civil amenities such as benches, sheds, clean drinking water and toilets; (vi) broken boundaries and grills; and (vii) use of the park for unauthorised purposes such as marriages, social gatherings and public meetings. The Division Bench on 19 September 2014 passed a detailed order directing that necessary steps should, amongst others, be taken to install proper lighting arrangements so as to obviate dangers, particularly in the early morning and late evening hours. 3. On 26 September 2014, the Court constituted a Committee consisting of the learned Additional Advocate General who would be the Chief Co-ordinator, the District Magistrate, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, the Chairperson of the Development Authority, the Municipal Commissioner and the Superintendent, Government Gardens so that the restoration work is done in a holistic sense after a proper plan is prepared for the manner in which the park should be restored and maintained. The Court also emphasised that the installation of solar panels required immediate attention. The Court also emphasised that the installation of solar panels required immediate attention. On 4 December 2014, the Court was informed that the actual installation of lighting for the safety of persons visiting Company Bagh is required to be carried out by the Development Authority. 4. The work required to be performed under the tender notice dated 16 June 2015 that has been issued by the Development Authority is for the SITC of solar LED lighting in the Company Bagh. Tenders have been invited in a two bid system for Solar/LED Manufacturer Firm. The notice requires that the work has to be completed in four months. Volume-I of the tender document deals with technical qualifications, while Volume-II deals with the price bid. The grievance of the petitioner with respect to the tender notice dated 16 June 2015, as contained in paragraphs 13 to 17 of the petition, is that the price indicated in the Bill of Quantity for each item is highly excessive. Similar allegation has been made with regard to the second tender notice dated 2 July 2015. In support of his contention that excessive rates have been quoted in the Bill of Quantity, the petitioner has referred to various mails which have been sent by the Company to R.G. Traders. 5. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority has stated that R.G. Traders is a contractor registered with the Development Authority but the said trader cannot participate in the tender process because only manufacturers of the items can submit the tenders and even otherwise, R.G. Traders does not qualify the technical bid because of the conditions stipulated therein. His contention is that this would clearly demonstrate that this petition has been filed at the behest of R.G. Traders. Learned counsel has also stated that when the copy of the public interest litigation was served, information was sought from the manufacturers as to why they had initially indicated a price which, according to the petitioner, is highly excessive. The reply sent by the manufacturer to the Development Authority on 14 July 2015 has also been placed before the Court to substantiate that the price indicated to R.G. Traders does not include substantial services to be rendered and the accessories which the manufacturer would be providing to the Development Authority in terms of the tender document. The reply sent by the manufacturer to the Development Authority on 14 July 2015 has also been placed before the Court to substantiate that the price indicated to R.G. Traders does not include substantial services to be rendered and the accessories which the manufacturer would be providing to the Development Authority in terms of the tender document. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the Development Authority that the price indicated in the Bill of Quantity has been fixed in consultation with the Consultant appointed by the State Government and after due verification from the manufacturers. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It surprises us that the documents, which have been enclosed with the public interest litigation to substantiate the case of the petitioner that the rates quoted in the Bill of Quantity are excessive, are responses sent by the manufacturers to R.G. Traders. Learned counsel for the Development Authority has informed the Court that though R.G. Traders is registered with the Development Authority but the said firm would not be eligible to participate in the tender process as the tender document not only requires the manufacturers to submit tenders, but even otherwise the petitioner would not satisfy the technical qualifications. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner came into contact with R.G. Traders and why he has supplied the documents to the petitioner nor is there any averment to this effect in the public interest litigation. The fact that R.G. Traders had sought certain information from the original manufacturers and such information has been enclosed with this PIL leaves no manner of doubt that this PIL has been filed at the instance of R.G. Traders with ulterior motives for stalling the tender process which had been initiated by the Development Authority pursuant to the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the public interest litigation filed by Madhu Singh. We deprecate such tendencies on the part of the litigants to file sponsored public interest litigation. 8. We deprecate such tendencies on the part of the litigants to file sponsored public interest litigation. 8. In this regard, we feel tempted to reproduce certain paragraphs from the decision of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 1 SCC 590 , which have emphasised that only a person acting bona fide and not for oblique consideration can be permitted to maintain a public interest litigation. The Supreme Court has also observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful to see that behind the veil of public interest, some vested interest is not lurking. The observations are as follows : “4. ............. 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 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 ) ................. 12. 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. 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 be 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.” (emphasis supplied) 9. In Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odhisa v. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014) 1 SCC 161 , the Supreme Court also observed : “31. Thus, from the aforesaid authorities it is quite vivid that the public interest litigation was initially evolved as a tool to take care of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of the marginalized sections of the society who because of their poverty and illiteracy could not approach the Court. In quintessence it was initially evolved to benefit the have-nots and the handicapped for protection of their basic human rights and to see that the authorities carry out their constitutional obligations towards the marginalized sections of people who cannot stand up on their own and come to Court to put forth their grievances. Thereafter, there have been various phases as has been stated in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra). It is also perceptible that Court has taken note of the fact how the public interest litigations have been misutilized to vindicate vested interests for the propagated public interest. .....................” (emphasis supplied) 10. We, therefore, propose to not only dismiss this petition for this reason alone but also impose costs. 11. It is also perceptible that Court has taken note of the fact how the public interest litigations have been misutilized to vindicate vested interests for the propagated public interest. .....................” (emphasis supplied) 10. We, therefore, propose to not only dismiss this petition for this reason alone but also impose costs. 11. What has also been placed before the Court by learned counsel for the Development Authority is the clarification issued by the manufacturer to the Development Authority regarding the price indicated by it to the Development Authority and the price indicated by it to R.G. Tranders. We deem it appropriate to reproduce what has been stated in the clarification letter dated 14 July 2015 which has been sent by the manufacturer and the letter is as follows: “I would like to bring to your notice the following points which I had discussion with the concern contractor M/s R. G. Traders regarding the supply of the Solar product. 1. Contractor had no clarity of the required specs though he sent the mail quoting its requirement at some Nagar Panchayat at Shahjahanpur. 2. When asked about the detail of the product he confirmed the requirement “21w solar Hydbrid fitting with pole” and also requested to quote the minimum price with minimal requirement to get the light function. My assumption of the offer is as below: The quoted price for the 20/21w solar is based on the below assumption— 1. 20/21w Solar comes with different variant and the quoted price to R G Traders includes the Lum. (with PWM charger) dimmable version with lowest panel and battery capacity. 2. This does not include 3 yrs warranty as per Co. policy on complete system including Lum-Panel-Battery-Pole and other accessories Maintenance of battery every 2 months Training of the local person for faster handling at site within the given stipulated time period. Installation cost Transportation cost of material to the site Arranging dedicated team for the regular supervision during installation Payment post completion of the project or on Prorata basis Solvency which attracts capital block of company Lumen of fixture has not been considered more than 1850 lumen at system level Battery back up of 3 days Metal Battery Box MPPT Charger Controller Storage of material Security etc. at warehouse All kind of taxation To bring to your notice the above mentioned components attract a lot of investment and hence impact the overall costing at great extent. This is a clear case of misinterpretation and misleading based on the limited info. of M/S R G Traders (Shailedra)” 12. The aforesaid letter clearly highlights the extensive services which the manufacturer would be rendering in terms of the tender notice as also the additional accessories which would be provided. The manufacturer has informed that 20/21w Solar for which information was sought by the R.G. Traders from the manufacturer comes with a different variant and the price quoted to R.G. Traders includes dimmable version with lowest panel and battery capacity. It has also been stated that the price quoted to R.G. Traders did not include three years comprehensive policy on complete system including Lum-Panel-Battery-Pole and other accessories; maintenance of battery every two months; training of the local person for faster handling at site within the given stipulated time period; installation cost; transportation cost of material to the site; arranging dedicated team for the regular supervision during installation; payment post completion of the project or on prorata basis; solvency which attracts capital block of company; more than 1850 lumen at system level; battery back up of three days; metal battery box; MPPT charger controller; storage of material; security etc. at warehouse; and taxation which services would be provided under the tender document. The information supplied by the manufacturer to the Development Authority does explain the difference in the price quoted to R.G. Traders and the price indicated by the Development Authority in the Bill of Quantity and the tender documents. 13. Thus, for the reasons stated above, this petition which has purportedly been filed in the public interest deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- which the petitioner shall deposit with the Registrar General of the Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 5000/- which the petitioner shall deposit with the Registrar General of the Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost, the Registrar General of the Court shall inform the District Magistrate, Allahabad for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and after recovering the said amount, transmit it to the Registrar General of the Court for depositing in the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. ——————