JUDGMENT : Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. This public interest litigation was registered on receipt of an undated letter addressed to a Judge of this Court by one Surajmal s/o Laduram resident of 3-M-89, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur alleging illegalities, misuse of power and corruption against the then Mayor of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation and her husband. 2. For the sake of brevity, we are referring to some of the allegations levelled against the Mayor. It is mentioned in the letter that the Mayor had misused her power and caused harm to the city of Jaipur by flouting the rules which were meant to preserve its heritage. Business activities are being carried out in the residential colonies and no efforts have been made by the Mayor to prevent them. The Mayor had violated the rules and regulations by illegally converting her residential house, which was in fact in the name of her father-in-law, into the Mayor's residence by issuing order dated 29.06.2010. The Mayor had also incurred expenditure of Rs.4.00 crores for renovation of this house which caused huge loss to the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. Newspaper reports regarding violation of the orders of this Court and allegations of misuse of power and corruption have also been attached to this letter. In the light of these allegations, it has been prayed that directions be issued to the Anti Corruption Bureau/Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Auditor General to conduct fair and impartial investigation in the matter. 3. The learned Judge of this Court upon receipt of this letter directed that the letter may be treated as letter petition. After orders of the Chief Justice, the petition was registered on 10.10.2014 and listed before the Bench having roster of public interest litigation and vide order dated 15.01.2015, notices were issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan respondent No.1, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department respondent No.2, Jyoti Khandelwal (Mayor) respondent No.3 and her husband Sharad Khandelwal respondent No.4. 4. In response to the notice, separate replies were filed by respondent No.3 & 4. No reply has been filed by other respondents except applications filed by the Municipal Corporation through its counsel to place on record certain documents including the report of the Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department dated 13.11.2014 and communication of the Anti Corruption Bureau dated 22.11.2012. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents. No reply has been filed by other respondents except applications filed by the Municipal Corporation through its counsel to place on record certain documents including the report of the Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department dated 13.11.2014 and communication of the Anti Corruption Bureau dated 22.11.2012. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner at any stage of the case. 6. A perusal of the record indicates that the undated letter sent to a Judge of this Court has been treated as a public interest litigation. The author of the letter has indicated his address therein but no notice has been sent to him before the registration of the public interest litigation to enable him to file an affidavit in support of the contents of the letter so as to prove its authenticity. In terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. [ (2010) 3 SCC 402 ], to prevent the misuse of PIL, the Rajasthan High Court has framed rules for regulating the public interest litigation vide notification dated 30.04.2010 which have been duly inserted in the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. The relevant extract of these Rules pertaining to entertainment of letter petitions is reproduced as under: “Letter Petitions 385-J. Hearing of Letter Petitions on judicial side.-No Letter Petition shall be heard on judicial side unless registered as a PIL Petition in accordance with the procedure provided in this Chapter. 385-K. Letter Petition addressed to the Chief Justice or any Judge.-(a) Letter petition, addressed to the Chief Justice and directed by him to be registered as PIL Petition, shall be so registered. (b) Letter petition, addressed to a Judge of the High Court, may be forwarded by him to the Chief Justice for consideration. 385-L. Letter Petitions Cell.-There shall be a Letter Petitions Cell in the Court, headed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) comprising such Officers of the Registry as members as may, from time to time, be nominated by the Chief Justice. 385-M. Procedure for scrutiny of Letter Petitions and registration of PIL Petition thereupon.-(1) All Letter Petitions other than those mentioned in rule 385-K above, shall be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial) in original, who shall mark it to a member of the Letter Petitions Cell for scrutiny. 385-M. Procedure for scrutiny of Letter Petitions and registration of PIL Petition thereupon.-(1) All Letter Petitions other than those mentioned in rule 385-K above, shall be forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial) in original, who shall mark it to a member of the Letter Petitions Cell for scrutiny. The member shall scrutinize the Letter Petition so marked in the light of the guidelines contained in this Chapter or as may, from time to time, be issued by the Chief Justice. After scrutiny, the Letter Petition shall be submitted with scrutiny-note to the Chief Justice or to a Judge or a Committee of Judges, nominated for the purpose by the Chief Justice. (2) The Chief Justice or the Judge or the committee of Judges nominated by the Chief Justice, may either direct that the Letter Petition be registered as PIL Petition or may pass such other order as deemed fit. (3) Where the Judge or the Committee of Judges nominated by the Chief Justice, directs registration of a Letter Petition as a PIL Petition, the same shall be so registered and placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to a Bench for hearing: Provided that the Chief Justice or the Judge or the Committee of Judges as referred above, before directing a Letter Petition to be registered as a PIL Petition may cause any such enquiry to be made in relation to the petitioner, and may require such further and better particulars from the petitioner, as deemed proper and necessary. (4) No one shall have a right to be heard by the Chief Justice or by the Judge or the Committee of Judges nominated by the Chief Justice in respect of a Letter Petition before its registration; and no correspondence shall be entertained in respect of any Letter Petition. (5) The High Court shall not be obliged to maintain a record of every Letter Petition; nor shall the Chief Justice or the Judge or the Committee of Judges nominated by the Chief Justice, be bound to assign or communicate reasons for any order made under sub-rules (2) and (3) of this rule. 385-N. Bar on certain matters to be registered as PIL Petition on a Letter Petition.-(1) No Letter Petition espousing individual/personal cause, or any such cause as may from time to time be specified by the High Court, shall be entertained as a PIL Petition. 385-N. Bar on certain matters to be registered as PIL Petition on a Letter Petition.-(1) No Letter Petition espousing individual/personal cause, or any such cause as may from time to time be specified by the High Court, shall be entertained as a PIL Petition. (2) Ordinarily, a letter petition shall not be directed to be registered simply because the petitioner lacks financial resources to prosecute the remedy available to him under the law. In such cases, appropriate direction to the Legal Services Committee or the State Legal Services Authority may be made by the Chief Justice or by the Judge or the Committee of the Judges nominated by the Chief Justice. 385-O. Saving of the powers of the Chief Justice.-Nothing contained in these rules shall be deemed to restrict the powers of the Chief Justice to register a Letter Petition in his discretion.” 7. It is clear from a bare reading of Rule 385N of the High Court Rules that no letter petition espousing individual or personal cause shall be entertained as PIL petition. Normally a letter petition is also not to be registered only for the reason that the petitioner may lack adequate financial resources to avail the remedy available to him under the law. In terms of Rule 385M, letter petition has to be scrutinized in the light of the guidelines contained in the chapter so as to ensure that only bonafide petitions are entertained. It is also stipulated in proviso to clause (3) of Rule 385M that before registering letter petition as PIL, enquiry may be made in relation to the petitioner and he/she may be directed to file better particulars in the case. 8. It is, thus, apparent that the court has to be extremely cautious while registering letter petitions as public interest litigation. It is necessary to ensure that the petitioner is not espousing individual or personal cause which could be done by verifying his bonafides. However, the instant letter petition does not indicate that the petitioner lacks resources to file the petition by way of public interest litigation in the Registry. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held in several cases that it is necessary to check the abuse and misuse of the public interest litigation. However, the instant letter petition does not indicate that the petitioner lacks resources to file the petition by way of public interest litigation in the Registry. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held in several cases that it is necessary to check the abuse and misuse of the public interest litigation. It should not be used as a tool in hands of unscrupulous litigants to give vent to their personal grievances or to resort to vendetta and the reputation of innocent citizens should not be maligned in a casual manner. 9. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India [ (1984) 3 SCC 161 ] wherein it was held that grave danger is inherent in a practice where a mere letter is entertained as a petition from a person whose antecedents and status are unknown or so uncertain that no sense of responsibility can be attributed to the communication. It was also observed that the document petitioning the court for relief should be supported by satisfactory verification especially when the petitions are received by the court through the post as it is possible that unverified communication may have been sent malafide, as an instrument of coercion or blackmail or other motive against a person named therein who holds a position of honour and respect in society. The court must be vigilant against the abuse of its process. It was also held that the verification should be done at earlier stage and before issuing notice to the respondents. 10. It is also necessary to note that the letter petition was addressed to a particular Judge of this Court which is highly improper as it intends to violate the sanctity of the institution of High Court. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (supra) that a letter invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be addressed to the entire Court, that is the Chief Justice and his companion Judges. No such communication or petition can properly be addressed to a particular Judge as when the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it is jurisdiction of the entire Court. Communications and petitions addressed to a particular Judge are improper and violate the institutional personality of the Court. No such communication or petition can properly be addressed to a particular Judge as when the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it is jurisdiction of the entire Court. Communications and petitions addressed to a particular Judge are improper and violate the institutional personality of the Court. They also embarrass the Judge to whom they are addressed. 11. In the case of Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerela & Ors. [ (2008) 3 SCC 542 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that the public interest litigation should be entertained by a constitutional court only at the instance of a bonafide litigant. In that case, an anonymous letter had been received and it was held that there was no way to verify the bonafides of the sender and no effort was made by the High Court to verify the authenticity, truth or otherwise of the contents of the petition. The suo moto proceedings initiated by the High Court were set aside. 12. In the case of State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), while discussing the various phases of the public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has held that it is necessary to prevent the abuse and misuse of public interest litigation. Several directions were issued to the High Courts including verifying the credentials of the petitioner and prima facie satisfaction regarding correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining public interest litigation. These directions are reproduced hereunder: “We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. 198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:- (1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) 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. (8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” In terms of these directions of the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court has framed rules for maintainability of public interest litigation as already referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. 13. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that entertaining this letter petition without any notice to the author for verification and authenticity of its contents was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Before registering the letter petition as public interest litigation, it was necessary that a notice should have been issued to the author of the letter and he should have been directed to file an affidavit in support of the contents of the letter. The requirement of affidavit is essential to prevent malicious & wanton allegations against innocent citizens. Neither any notice was issued to the sender of the letter nor any effort whatsoever has been made to verify the credentials of the author such as authenticity of the address given in the petition. The requirement of affidavit is essential to prevent malicious & wanton allegations against innocent citizens. Neither any notice was issued to the sender of the letter nor any effort whatsoever has been made to verify the credentials of the author such as authenticity of the address given in the petition. In the absence of any verification of the address of the petitioner, it is not known whether the petitioner really exists and whether his address mentioned in the letter petition is correct. Therefore, this letter petition although purports to have been sent by a named individual but it cannot be treated any more than an anonymous petition. The letter petition had been sent by name to a particular Judge of this Court which is improper as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (supra). In case such petitions, either anonymous or by individuals whose addresses and credentials are not verified, are entertained by the court then it will lead to rather disturbing trend as it would facilitate unscrupulous litigants to malign citizens for their own vested interests. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. 14. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner, if he, was serious about the allegations against the respondents No.3 & 4, could have sought recourse to other remedies available to him under the law including launching criminal proceedings or at least to set the criminal law in motion by lodging FIR. No such step appears to have been taken by the petitioner and instead he chose to send this letter. 15. Although the petition does not deserve to be entertained and should have been dismissed at very first instance but with regard to the fact that the matter remained pending adjudication for over a year and replies of the respondents are also on record, we deem it necessary to examine the same vis-a-vis the allegations levelled against respondents No.3 & 4 in the letter petition to decide whether any directions are required to be issued in this public interest litigation. 16. The respondent No.3 has filed detailed reply denying the allegations which have been levelled against her in this letter petition. We are not referring to the reply in detail for the sake of brevity but would like to notice some of the averments made therein. 16. The respondent No.3 has filed detailed reply denying the allegations which have been levelled against her in this letter petition. We are not referring to the reply in detail for the sake of brevity but would like to notice some of the averments made therein. It is stated by the respondent No.3 that she was the Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation from 26.11.2009 to 26.11.2014 and had been continuously making efforts to prevent commercial activities in residential areas and has drawn our attention to several letters which she had written in this regard. These letters have been annexed as Annexures R/2, R/3 & R/4. With regard to the allegation about illegal construction of K.K. Complex at Bai Ji Ka Khanda, Bari Chaupar, she has submitted that these allegations were found to be without any basis as the Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department, in an enquiry held against respondent No.3, did not find any substance in the matter. With regard to the personal use of her house as a residence of the Mayor, it is submitted that entire ground floor of the house of her father-in-law was used as office without charging any rent from the Municipal Corporation till the government accommodation was made available and no expenditure was ever incurred on repair and maintenance of her office at her residence or residential premises. It is also denied that Rs.4.00 crores was spent on its renovation and it is stated that she did not sanction any expenditure on the Mayor's residence during her tenure. She has also denied that she ever encouraged unauthorised construction and has stated that she had made every effort to stop such construction. It is also denied that she was running hotel at Plot No.21/84 at Kaveri Path, Mansarover. The Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department also found the allegation of giving advertising contract to the tune of Rs.7,05,21,000/- to M/s. Symphony Real Mart baseless and the allegations with regard to auction of sale of plot No.GR-2, Sundar Singh Bhandari Nagar, Jaipur and work under the Scheme of JNNURM were also found baseless by Director, Local Fund Audit Department. Other allegations pertaining to electricity bills of the Mayor's residence have also been denied and she has stated that the amount of Rs.38,000/- was paid by her on 26.12.2012 and other electricity bills upto June 2012 in respect of residential office had also been paid by the respondent No.3 from her own pocket. It is categorically denied that a hotel is being run by her and her husband. She has also stated that she does not own any plot and no hotel has been constructed by her or her husband in individual capacity or in partnership with other builders. Other allegations including issuing pattas in back date by housing cooperative society in the name of her relatives and that her husband was in debt have also been denied. She has further submitted that she had been complaining about the corrupt deeds of the then Chief Executive Officer and ultimately one Executive Engineer was trapped red handed with Rs.15,00,000/-at the residence of the Chief Executive Officer but no further action was taken by the Anti Corruption Bureau and she had taken up the matter with higher authorities. Consequently the Chief Executive Officer Lal Chand Aswal was arrested. She has also enumerated action initiated by her against corrupt officials. She has further stated that one Mukut Bihari had filed criminal complaint alleging unauthorized construction and encroachment by her at her residence at Baba Harishchandra Marg, Chandpole Bazar in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. The Special Judge had referred the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau. The Anti Corruption Bureau after investigation vide its order dated 18.09.2012 had come to the conclusion that no case was made out. 17. Likewise, in the reply filed by Sharad Khandelwal respondent No.4, all the allegations levelled against him have been denied. 18. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation had also moved an application dated 17.09.2015 for taking on record enquiry report dated 13.11.2014 conducted under the supervision of the Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department, Rajasthan Jaipur. It is stated in the application that the allegations levelled in the letter petition against the then Mayor, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur were regarding her involvement in allowing illegal construction, encroachment and misuse of public money. It is stated in the application that the allegations levelled in the letter petition against the then Mayor, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur were regarding her involvement in allowing illegal construction, encroachment and misuse of public money. Similar nature of complaints were made earlier, which were enquired into under the supervision of Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department, and a detailed report was submitted on 13.11.2014. A copy of the report has been annexed as Annexure-A/1 with the application. 19. A perusal of the report of the Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department indicates that the order of irregular allotment of the government land (public way) was stayed on a complaint made by the Mayor. It is also mentioned therein that necessary steps are required to be taken for removal of encroachment from the “hatched land” as it is government land (public way) in terms of para 32/N of record of Samvat 1925 and that even otherwise this issue relates to administrative enquiry and final decision has to be taken at the administrative level. 20. Another application dated 23.11.2015 has been filed by the counsel for the Municipal Corporation to place on record parawise report of the Joint Director (Vigilance), Local Fund Audit Department as well as the communication from Anti Corruption Bureau dated 22.11.2012 which are appended therewith as Annexures-A/1 & A/2 respectively. It is apparent from perusal of the parawise audit report that some of the allegations, which are also the allegations that have been levelled in the letter petition, were enquired into and no material was found to proceed further against respondent No.3. A translated copy of the parawise audit report which was furnished by the counsel for the Municipal Corporation is reproduced hereunder: “As per the direction of Hon'ble Chief Minister, an audit group (casting of officers mentioned below) was formed by Local Fund Audit Department to inquire about the misuse of office and irregularities committed by Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor:- 1. Shri Sugnaram Gurjar - Assistant Accounts Officers 2. Shri Laxmikant Sharma - Junior Auditor 3. Shri Kailash Chand Sharma - Junior Auditor By this Special Audit Group following complaints were inquired and following conclusions were drawn:- Complaints Conclusions/Comments 1. That Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, Pressurise officers to seize the K.K. Complex because of illegal construction. However, subsequently, due to her pressure it was unsized. 1. Shri Laxmikant Sharma - Junior Auditor 3. Shri Kailash Chand Sharma - Junior Auditor By this Special Audit Group following complaints were inquired and following conclusions were drawn:- Complaints Conclusions/Comments 1. That Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, Pressurise officers to seize the K.K. Complex because of illegal construction. However, subsequently, due to her pressure it was unsized. 1. There is no evidence available on record which suggests that the complex was seized due to pressure of Mayor. As per the opinion of Lawyer of Jaipur Municipal Corporation and as recommended by Director (Law), the Mayor recommended for implementation of order of court and decision of no appeal. Therefore, prima facie this complaint seems not correct. 2. Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, Jaipur Municipal Corporation without taking permission from the government has declared her residence for Mayor. Whereas, a separate house earmarked for Mayor is available at Ghatgate and she used 12 officers/employees of Jaipur Municipal Corporation for working at her residence. 2. No officers/employees were appointed at the residence of Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor. So far as, declaration of residence is concerned, decision was taken by State Government as the house earmarked for Mayor was not appropriate and earlier also the previous Mayor did not prefer to stay in that house due to non-suitability. 3. That on the instruction of Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, the illegal constructions and encroachments were made and were issued directions to not to take any adverse action against illegal constructions. When Vigilance Commissioner went to demolish the illegal construction of 8, Heera Bagh, the Mayor stopped him from demolition of construction. 3. There is a regular complaint of illegal construction in the city and there is nothing on record which suggest the illegal constructions/ encroachments are being allowed on behest of Mayor. There is nothing available on record which suggests that Mayor threatened Vigilance Commissioner Shri Lokesh Sonwal and because of whichlater on he was transferred. Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor issued administrative order and the higher officials considering the fact that it involves legal issues and the matter was pending before the court and an administrative decision was taken to stop the demolition. 4. That Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, illegally entered into an agreement for recovery of advertising free and though the Tender was for 7.00 Crores no approval was taken from the State Government. 4. 4. That Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, illegally entered into an agreement for recovery of advertising free and though the Tender was for 7.00 Crores no approval was taken from the State Government. 4. That the matter was considered at all the levels and after recommendation, the Tender was accepted by Chief Executive Officer and Mayor. The Commissioner (Revenue) usually signed the agreement. However, it was his duty to get it signed from Chief Executive Officer before or after signed by Mayor. However, this is not a serious irregularity as there was no objection by Chief Executive Officer or any other officer of the Firm. 5. That Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, retained 456 files unnecessarily which was for the payment of less than 75 Lacs for her personal interest. 5. This is an administrative issue and complaint cannot be verified. 6. That Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, made complaint against laxmi Electrical and Decorators for giving false payment and irregularities in contract. However, letter on, she accepted that the new contract from this firm and made the payment of bills. 6. That considering all these facts, the Commissioner (Electricity) and Chief Executive Officer sent a file for contract as the firm quoted minimum rate and therefore, the Mayor approved the file. In case, it is found that the complaint against the firm was not inquired properly then the action can be taken against the firm as the complaint was in relation to the wrong payment made to the firm in relation to the previous tender. 7. That Smt. Jyoti Khandelwal, Mayor, kept decision of acceptance/refusal for auction of a Plot held in Sundar Singh Bhandari Nagar which promotes corruption. 7. The allegations made is baseless as the Mayor has right to accept or refuse the auction. The condition is clearly mentioned in Terms & Conditions of Tender. 8. That the payment of Rs.7.00 Crores made against the Seiver Line Project for Jaipur City by pressurizing the officers of Jaipur Municipal Corporation. 8. The payment was made as per the decisi g on taken by State Government after retainin20% of the amount. A perusal of the communication of the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau dated 22.11.2011 reveals that the allegations against respondent No.3 were enquired into and as no evidence was found against her, vide order dated 18.09.2012 the matter was closed. 21. A perusal of the communication of the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau dated 22.11.2011 reveals that the allegations against respondent No.3 were enquired into and as no evidence was found against her, vide order dated 18.09.2012 the matter was closed. 21. Therefore, in the light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case to issue any directions pertaining to allegations against the respondents No.3 & 4. However, we clarify that anything observed by us hereinabove would not be construed to be an expression on merits of the allegations against the respondents No.3 & 4. We have referred to the allegations and the response of the respondents thereto only for deciding the issue at hand as to whether any directions are required to be issued in the instant public interest litigation. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.