JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a member of the Bar, practising before this High Court, has sought to invoke the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation for a direction to the Lucknow Development Authority, impleaded as the second respondent, 'to stop the illegal schemes and projects' of the fourth respondent 'and other housing and infrastructure companies' and to cease the operations of the marketing division of the fourth respondent. 2. The fourth respondent is a private limited company. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development to frame regulations in regard to the recovery of public moneys in respect of illegal projects and schemes in which the public has invested funds and for the recovery thereof from the fourth respondent. The petitioner also seeks a direction against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow to recover the tax deducted at source by the fourth respondent from its members and agents from commissions and rewards allegedly allowed for selling plots under various schemes. 3. The first aspect which would appear from the writ petition is that the petitioner, besides relying upon news reports which are annexed to these proceedings as Annexure-10, has not produced credible material either in regard to his own locus or in support of the pleadings. No aggrieved individual is before the Court. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anirudh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2015) 7 SCC 779 which has been relied upon, arose in a situation where persons who were affected by the running of a pathological lab in a building contrary to law was before the Court in a public interest litigation. In this view of the matter, it would not be either appropriate or proper, particularly at this stage when the normal remedies which are available both under the criminal law and other remedial measures, by approaching the competent statutory authorities are open. The petitioner has also claimed to have submitted representations with the Lucknow Development Authority which he is at liberty to pursue. However, we may note that no representation has been annexed to the writ petition nor is a copy of any representation produced before the Court. We clarify that we are making this observation without, in any manner, conferring upon the petitioner a locus or entitlement. However, we may note that no representation has been annexed to the writ petition nor is a copy of any representation produced before the Court. We clarify that we are making this observation without, in any manner, conferring upon the petitioner a locus or entitlement. However, once the facts are drawn to the attention of the competent statutory authority, it would then be for the second respondent to look into all materials and determine if there is any illegality committed by the fourth respondent and what action would be necessary in accordance with law to secure justice. 4. We also clarify that we are not making any observation or finding on the merits of the allegations made in this petition. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.