Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The claim raised and relief claimed in both these petitions are same and similar, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. Since the pleadings are complete in CWP No.8246 of 2014, therefore, reference is only being made to the pleadings in this case. 3. The petitioner(s) in both the petitions claim themselves to be “public spirited persons” carrying on their vocation at Nahan and also claim to be doing social work in the interest of public at large since long. They alongwith public at large surrounding Nahan, District Sirmaur, claim to be aggrieved by the action of respondents No. 1 to 6 whereby they have permitted handing over of the godown to the Food Corporation of India (for short ‘FCI’) which is alleged to be situated just on the bank/riverlet and because of its location, not only the building, but even food grains stored therein would be destroyed in the near future. 4. It is averred that the ‘FCI’ at present is already having a District level godown at Tehsil Nahan which is being run in a government building at nominal monthly rent of Rs.600/- per month while the rent for the new premises is more than 1600 times at the rate of Rs.10 lacs per month. It is also alleged that the hiring of such godown is only to confer undue benefit upon respondents 7 to 10, who otherwise, are not entitled to be considered much less awarded contract because the land in question is already in dispute while there was a specific condition in the tender document that the land should be free from all encumbrances. It is also alleged that undue benefit conferred upon the private respondents 7 to 10 is proved from the fact when the revenue entries from “gair mumkin khala” were abruptly within a short span of 24 hours changed to “banjar kadim” because in case the land would have remained classified as “gair mumkin khala” which means rivulet, then there would have been no occasion for the respondents to have awarded the tender in favour of respondents 7 to 10 as the official respondents would not have permitted their grains to be stored in a godown built over a rivulet. The petitioner(s) lastly claim that no permission from the Town and Country Planning Department has been obtained before raising the construction. 5. The petitioner(s) lastly claim that no permission from the Town and Country Planning Department has been obtained before raising the construction. 5. The respondents 7 to 10 have contested the petition by filing reply wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition has been raised. It is further claimed that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and the petition has not been filed in public interest as is otherwise professed in the writ petition. A specific allegation has been made to the effect that the writ petitioner has not disclosed that he is a business rival and is running a weigh bridge at Nahan which is surviving only on the basis of business provided by the ‘FCI’ while running its old and shabby godown at Nahan. It is then averred that the ‘FCI’ has taken a conscious decision to shift its godown in larger public interest but then this would affect the petitioner’s business interest and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. It has been denied that this petition raises any issue of public interest rather the same has been filed only to secure private interest. The ‘FCI’ had issued notice inviting tenders in 2012 for establishing modern food storage godown in various Districts across the State in which the tender of the replying respondents was accepted whereafter massive construction of huge food storage godown at the cost of Rs.11.11 crores was undertaken after obtaining loans from various financial institutions. 6. On merits, apart from reiterating the preliminary objections and denying the averments made in the petition, it is submitted that as against 200 square metres area with 410 metric tonnes capacity of the old godown, a new godown is 20000 square metres having storage capacity of 11670 metric tonnes. The old location has no parking place or office block and also no weigh bridge, whereas, the new godown was equipped with office block and also had a in-house weigh bridge facility. It is further stated that the new godown has been insured for Rs.8,15,00,000/- with the National Insurance Company. 7. Insofar as the location is concerned, it is averred that the land is not abutting “Markandey Rivulet”, but is at a distance of about 500 feet from that of the seasonal rivulet. This shows that the same is neither perennial nor is it swollen. 7. Insofar as the location is concerned, it is averred that the land is not abutting “Markandey Rivulet”, but is at a distance of about 500 feet from that of the seasonal rivulet. This shows that the same is neither perennial nor is it swollen. Not only this, there are number of factories located in and around this godown some of which are at a distance of just about 30 feet from this seasonal rivulet. Besides, there are number of hotels operating from this area. 8. The allegation regarding pendency of the civil suit has been admitted but it has been stated that there has been no objection of any of the plaintiffs with regard to construction of godowns over the lands owned by the replying respondents. It is specifically pointed out that the land referred to in the civil suit is not the land over which the godowns have been constructed and pertain to some other land. 9. As regards change of revenue entries, it is claimed that the land had been wrongly recorded in the revenue record as “gair mumkin khala” and the same was rightly corrected and classified as “banjar kadim” by the competent authority. 10. The Secretary (Food and Supplies) and Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, have filed joint reply wherein the locus-standi and maintainability of the petition have been questioned by way of preliminary objections. On merits, it is claimed that the entry in the revenue record from “gair mumkin khala” to “banjar kadim” was carried out after inspecting the spot as per procedure prescribed for the purpose. 11. The ‘FCI’ has filed its separate reply wherein apart from raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action and maintainability, it has been claimed that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and is guilty of deliberate and intentional mis-statement and concealment of facts. It is claimed that the petitioner infact at one point of time had applied to the replying respondents to hire his weigh bridge for the purpose of weighing of food grains supplied by the ‘FCI’ which application of the petitioner had not been considered favourably. It is claimed that the petitioner infact at one point of time had applied to the replying respondents to hire his weigh bridge for the purpose of weighing of food grains supplied by the ‘FCI’ which application of the petitioner had not been considered favourably. It is then claimed that the ‘FCI’ is having storage capacity to the tune of 33930 MT of food grains in the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereas, monthly off-take of wheat and rice under the Public Distribution System (PDS) and Other Welfare Schemes (OWS) of the Government of India is about 45000 MT per month. As per the policy of the Government of India, the storage gap of 142550 MT was identified at various Centres of the State. In order to fill-up the storage gap, the Private Entrepreneur Guarantee (PEG) Scheme, 2008, was introduced for construction of godowns through private parties. A storage gap of 11670 MT was identified for the Nahan Centre. The existing capacity of the godown at Nahan is hardly 410 MT which comparatively is far too less to the allotment under PDS and OWS supply which is about 3500 MT per month. In support of such contention, the statement for the financial year 2013-14 has been annexed as Annexure R-B. The respondent has then given a detailed reference spelling out therein the mode and manner in which the tender came to be allotted in favour of respondents 7 to 10. 12. In rejoinder to the reply of respondents 7 to 10 in whose favour the tender has been allotted, a certificate by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat has been appended to show that the Khasra Number over which the godown has been constructed is adjacent to the “Markandey Canal”. Rapat No.612 has been annexed to show that as per the statement of one Pardeep Singh, one industrial unit by the name of M/s Vashishth Chemicals had previously been washed away. To similar effect is a certificate issued by the Patwari on 10.12.2002. Rapats No.948 and 949 have been placed on record to show that in the year 1960 one pillar of the bridge had been damaged due to heavy flow of water and it was suspected that about 15 persons had been washed away while three had sustained injuries. To similar effect is a certificate issued by the Patwari on 10.12.2002. Rapats No.948 and 949 have been placed on record to show that in the year 1960 one pillar of the bridge had been damaged due to heavy flow of water and it was suspected that about 15 persons had been washed away while three had sustained injuries. Rapat No.966 dated 23.07.2006 has been appended to show that on the night of 22.07.2006 the retaining wall of Vashishth Chemical, Ogla, had given way thereby causing a loss of several lakhs of rupees. Report No.965 has been placed on record which has been lodged by one Ashok Kumar over the telephone to inform that the unit M/s Bhagwati Enterprises had been flooded by the water of “Markandey River” due to which they had sustained loss of about Rs.15 lacs. It is claimed that the matter with regard to change of revenue entries is pending inquiry before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Rests of the averments made in the reply are stated to be wrong and denied. 13. In sur-rejoinder filed by respondents 7 to 10, it has been reiterated that the petitioner in guise of the alleged public interest has filed this writ petition in personal interest for securing business of weighing trucks at the weigh bridge owned by him which is located near the existing godown. It is also stated that there are as many as 40 industries located in the area in question some of which have been established about 30 years ago. 14. In rejoinder to the reply filed by the ‘FCI’, the averments made in the rejoinder filed to the reply of respondents 7 to 10 have been reiterated. 15. The Town and Country Planning Department has filed its separate reply wherein it is stated that the respondents 7 to 10 had applied for the Planning for permission for construction of godown which proposal was examined and permission for construction of godowns/sheds was accorded by the Office and thereafter revised case for regularization of office block was submitted which too was sanctioned by the Office. No rejoinder to the said reply has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 16. No rejoinder to the said reply has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 16. The petitioner (s) claim to have filed these petitions as Pro Bono Publico, whereas, the respondents have challenged the locus standi by contending that the petition has not been filed in public interest, but has been filed to protect private interest. In such circumstances, this Court is required to first satisfy itself regarding the credentials of the petitioner(s), the prima-facie correctness of the information given by them because after all the attractive brand name of public interest litigation cannot be used for suspicious products of mischief. It has to be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta or private motive. The process of the Court cannot be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. The common rule of locus-standi in such cases is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained of on behalf of the poor, deprive, deprivation, illiterate and the disabled and who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. But, then while protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner, utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction nor does it entertain petitions which are motivated. After all, public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged. 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 public interest seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering justice to the citizens. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. It is for this reason that the Court must maintain social balance by interfering for the sake of justice and refuse to entertain where it is against the social justice and public good. 17. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. It is for this reason that the Court must maintain social balance by interfering for the sake of justice and refuse to entertain where it is against the social justice and public good. 17. In the case of Shri Sachidanand Pandey and another versus The State of West Bengal and others AIR 1987 SC 1109 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “Today public spirited litigants rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. Public Interest Litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to Courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is therefore necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do no restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves Administrative and executive functions. This does not mean that traditional litigation should stay out. They have to be tackled by other effective methods, like decentralizing the judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to Village Courts and Lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and by a complete restructuring of the procedural law which is the villain in delaying disposal of cases…It is only when Courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basis human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the Courts, especially the Supreme Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on Public Interest Litigants.” 18. In S.P.Anand, Indore versus H.D.Deve Gowda and others (1996) 6 SCC 734 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “18….. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on Public Interest Litigants.” 18. In S.P.Anand, Indore versus H.D.Deve Gowda and others (1996) 6 SCC 734 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “18….. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the Court that he does not rush to Court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the Court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filing a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the point. We say this because when we drew the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside, without so much as showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Except for saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person well versed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter cases, freedom of speech and expression, uniform civil code, etc; we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate use of this important lever of public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself.” 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mr. ‘X’ versus Hospital ‘Z’ (1998) 8 SCC 296 held as follows:- “15. “Right” is an interest recognised and protected by moral or legal rules. It is an interest the violation of which would be a legal wrong. Respect for such interest would be a legal duty. That is how Salmond has defined "Right". In order, therefore, that an interest becomes the subject of a legal right, it has to have not merely legal protection but also legal recognition, the elements of a "legal right" are that the 'right' is vested in a person and is available against a person who is under a corresponding obligation and duty to respect that right and has to act or forbear from acting in a manner so as to prevent the violation of the right, If, therefore, there is a legal right vested in a .person, the latter can seek its protection against a person who is bound by a corresponding duty not to violate that right.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees’ Union(Regd.) versus Union of India and others (2002) 2 SCC 333 held as under:- “77. 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. 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 co-operative 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”.” 21. In Ashok Kumar Pandey versus State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349 , the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering few decisions on the aspect of public interest litigation observed as follows:- “4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation” or "private interest litigation” or "politics interest litigation” or the latest trend "paise income litigation”. If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant or poke ones nose into for a probe. 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. 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 The Janta Dal versus H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. 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 vs. Union of India, ( AIR 1993 SC 852 ) and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, ( 1994 (6) SCC 620 ).” 5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest litigation’. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus: "Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 6. In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest” is defined as follows : "Public Interest something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national government.” 7. In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows : (SCC p.331) “53. The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows : (SCC p.331) “53. The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 8. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p.334) "62.Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.” 9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows : (SCC pp.345-346) "98.While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.” 10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p.348, para 109) "109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 11. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 11. 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 grievance go unnoticed, un-represented 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 and facing the 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 busy bodies, meddlesome 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 court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 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. 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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to 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, 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 consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. 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. 13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined the "public interest litigation” in its report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: "Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” 14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” 14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, ( 1994 (2) SCC 481 ), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., ( AIR 1994 SC 2151 ). No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, JT (1996) 7 SC 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. 16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. K. Parasaran, JT (1996) 7 SC 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. 16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. ( AIR 1999 SC 114 ), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so- called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. 17…… 18. In S.P.Gupta versus Union of India 1981 Supp. SCC 87 it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. 17…… 18. In S.P.Gupta versus Union of India 1981 Supp. SCC 87 it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. It has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24) "24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective.” 19. In State of H.P. vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors. ( 1985 (3) SCC 169 ), it has been said that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. 20. Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of W.B., ( 1987 (2) SCC 295 , (SCC at page 331) said: "Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331, para 46) Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. (SCC p.334, para 59) I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self- imposed restraint on public interest litigants. (SCC p.335, para 61)” 21. (SCC p.334, para 59) I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self- imposed restraint on public interest litigants. (SCC p.335, para 61)” 21. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union of India, (1989 Supp (1) SCC 251), was in full agreement with the view expressed by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra) and added that 'public interest litigation' is an instrument of the administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases. See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India, ( 1984 (3) SCC 161 ). 22. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. ( 1976 (1) SCC 671 ) expressed his view that the application of a busybody should be rejected at the threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.” 23. Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sundri and Ors. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.” 23. Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sundri and Ors. v. Union of India, ( 1981 (1) SCC 568 ) in stronger terms stated: (SCC p.589, para 48) "48.If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him.” 24. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., ( 1990 (4) SCC 449 ), Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. observed: (SCC p.452, para 8) "While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the court.” 25. In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, ( 1991 (4) SCC 584 , 610), Ranganath Mishra, C.J. in his separate judgment while concurring with the conclusions of the majority judgment has said thus: (SCC p.610, para 21) "I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public activists should also be permitted to espouse the cause of the poor citizens but there must be a limit set to such activity and nothing perhaps should be done which would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down the serviceability of the institution to the people at large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe an obligation to the community of educating it properly and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled.” 26. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, ( 1991 (1) SCC 598 ) it was observed as follows: (SCC pp.604-05, para 7) "Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. If such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation.” 27. In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the courts must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations” or in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the applications of the busybodies should be rejected at the threshold itself” and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out, "the doors of the courts should not be ajar for such vexatious litigants.” 22. In Dr. B. Singh versus Union of India and others (2004) 3 SCC 363 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:- “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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to 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. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to 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, 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 consideration. 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 past time 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” 23. In R & M Trust versus Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others (2005) 3 SCC 91 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “23. Next question is whether such Public Interest Litigation should at all be entertained & laches thereon. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends. 24. Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought very bad name. Courts should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest in a very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the down trodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The Courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding implication and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in a very rare and few cases involving public interest of large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities…….” 24. In Gurpal Singh versus State of Punjab and others (2005) 5 SCC 136 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot, afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 6……… 7. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 6……… 7. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives. High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others ( AIR 1999 SC 114 ), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. 8……. 9. 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. 8……. 9. 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 substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing the 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 tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised 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 busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real 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 of luxury litigants who have nothing to loose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants. 10. 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 allowed to 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, 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 consideration. 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.” 25. In Kushum Lata versus Union of India and others (2006) 6 SCC 180 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:- “5. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation” or "private interest litigation” or "politics interest litigation” or the latest trend "paise income litigation”. The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the second category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. 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. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. 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. The 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 The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary ( 1992 (4) SCC 305 ) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. 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 vs. Union of India, ( AIR 1993 SC 852 ) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, ( 1994 (6) SCC 620 ).” 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) versus Union of India and others (2008) 5 SCC 511 observed as under:- “59. Unfortunately, the truth is that PILs are being entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that the dockets of most of the superior courts are flooded with PILs, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary has no remedy. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's versus State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 , public interest litigation has nowadays largely become “publicity interest litigation”, “private interest litigation”, or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend “paise income litigation”. Much of PIL is really blackmail. 60. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's versus State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 , public interest litigation has nowadays largely become “publicity interest litigation”, “private interest litigation”, or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend “paise income litigation”. Much of PIL is really blackmail. 60. Thus, Public Interest Litigation which was initially created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker section of society who could not afford to come to courts, has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together.” 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 , in paragraphs 178, 179, 180 and 181, laid down the following guidelines relating to Public Interest Litigation:- “178.We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the Public Interest Litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the Courts for improving ecology and environment, and the directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the Courts to encourage genuine bonafide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and the laws. 179. The Public Interest Litigation, which has been in existence in our country for more than four decades, has a glorious record. This Court and the High Courts by their judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with the inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of marginalized and vulnerable section of society have significantly improved on account of Court’s directions in PIL. 180. In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the PIL. 181. 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. 180. In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the PIL. 181. 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. 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. 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 PIL. (4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts 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 Courts 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.” 28. (8) The Courts 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.” 28. In a recent decision in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others (2014) 5 SCC 530 , a Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “49.The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under the particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation.” 29. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under the particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation.” 29. From the aforesaid exposition of law, it can safely be concluded that the Court would allow litigation in public interest only if it is found:- (i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any other legal right and relief is sought for its enforcement; (ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or malafide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest or on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance; (iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law; (iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or a meddlesome inter-loper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance; (v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in such litigation; (vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judicial and the democratic set up of the country; (vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities; (viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination; (ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives; (x) That before taking any action in public interest the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busy body or persons of groups with mala fide objective or either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to black-mailing or considerations extraneous to public interest. 30. Keeping in mind the aforesaid parameters, now in case the credentials of the petitioner in CWP No.8246 of 2014 are examined, save and except, for a bald statement that he is a “public spirited person” and is doing social work, there is no other worth-noting credential to his credit. While, on the other hand, it has specifically come on record that the petitioner has his own axe to grind because he himself was not only the beneficiary of the existing godown of the ‘FCI’ at Nahan because his weigh bridge (Dharamkanta) was there, but at one point of time, he had even approached the ‘FCI’ for hiring his weigh bridge which request had not been considered favourably. 31. Notably, these facts have not been denied by the petitioner and, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the conduct of the petitioner is not above suspicion and the present petition has not been preferred to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people, who are poor, ignorant or socially and economically disadvantageous position and are unable to seek redressal, is required to be espoused. The present petition is definitely adversarial whereby the petitioner has sought to protect his own interest. The present petition is definitely adversarial whereby the petitioner has sought to protect his own interest. Not only the credentials of the petitioner(s) are doubtful, but even issues raised in these petitions are only meant to subserve the interest of the petitioner(s) alone and the present petitions do not involve larger public interest aimed at redressal of genuine harm and public injury. It can definitely be said to have been filed for personal gain and oblique motive. The petitioner(s) cannot be said to be acting bonafidely and having sufficient interest in the proceedings and, therefore, does not have locus-standi to file and maintain the present petition. Realizing that he has no locus-standi, the petitioner in CWP No.8246 of 2014, then as a cover-up, appears to have got instituted the other petition being CWP No.9480 of 2014 through Vijay Kumar Gupta on same and similar lines. We observe so because the reply on behalf of respondents 7 to 10 in CWP No.8246 of 2014 had been filed on 2nd December 2014 wherein these respondents had specifically questioned the locus-standi of the petitioner. Whereas, CWP No.9480 of 2014 has been prepared after filing of the abovesaid reply on 08.12.2014 and filed on 09.12.2014. 32. The matter can be looked at from a different angle. Where, how and of what capacity the godown of the ‘FCI’ should be, is a matter within the exclusive domain of ‘FCI’ and being in the realm of a policy decision, the same cannot be a subject-matter of a writ petition, unless arbitrariness is shown in the decision making process. This was so held by this Bench in Nand Lal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2014 (2) Him.L.R.(D.B.) 982, wherein it was held as under:- 9. The Apex Court in Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, 2005 AIR SCW 1399, has laid down the guidelines and held that Courts should not interfere in policy decision of the Government, unless there is arbitrariness on the face of it. 10. The Apex Court in a latest decision reported in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 616 , also held that interference by the Court on the ground of efficacy of the policy is not permissible. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the said decision as under: “14. 10. The Apex Court in a latest decision reported in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 616 , also held that interference by the Court on the ground of efficacy of the policy is not permissible. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the said decision as under: “14. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The impugned policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices.” 14. The Apex Court in the case titled as Mrs. Asha Sharma versus Chandigarh Administration and others, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5636 has held that policy decision cannot be quashed on the ground that another decision would have been more fair, wise, scientific or logical and in the interest of society. It is apt to reproduce para 10 herein “10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logic. The principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [ (2000) 8 SCC 262 : ( AIR 2000 SC 3313 )].” 15. It appears that the respondents have examined all aspects and made the decision. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision making process is bad. The Court can not sit in appeal and examine correctness of policy decision. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another versus Adikanda Biswal and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 731 laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment herein: “19. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment herein: “19. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers.” 33. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balco Employees’ case (supra), in para-88 held that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of its administrative power. No doubt, a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in the Court of law, but a public interest litigation cannot be entertained. Para-88 of the above ruling reads as under:- “88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt, a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court.” 34. In view of the aforesaid, it can safely be concluded that even on merits the decision of the ‘FCI’ is not open to challenge as it relates to policy. 35. This petition, otherwise, cannot be considered to be a public interest litigation as it does not fall within the purview of Rule-3 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, which were framed pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal’s case (supra). The petition does not even fulfill the mandate of Rule-9 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 and, therefore, is not maintainable. 36. The last weapon in the armoury of the petitioner then is the order passed by the SDM, Nahan, to contend that overnight the entries of the land from “gair mumkin khala”/ “rivulet” have been changed to “banjar kadim” and said fact has been affirmed in the aforesaid inquiry. We have gone through the order passed by the SDM which was placed before us during the course of final hearing in the open Court and find that the SDM in her report has not commented upon the correctness of the mutation, but has only expressed her suspicion in the mode and manner in which the mutation was carried out. Infact, the SDM in her report has clearly recorded that out of 38-13 bighas of total land comprised in Khasra No.508/393/4, there was a godown standing over the land measuring 12-11 bighas while the rest of the land was fallow land. Infact, the SDM in her report has clearly recorded that out of 38-13 bighas of total land comprised in Khasra No.508/393/4, there was a godown standing over the land measuring 12-11 bighas while the rest of the land was fallow land. Similarly, over the total area measuring 23-15 bighas land comprised in Khasra No.620/569/513/2/3, godown had been erected over land measuring 5-19 bighas while the rest of the land was lying fallow. If the entire report is perused, it would be seen that the SDM has nowhere recorded that the land infact was “gair mumkin khala” or that there was a danger to the godown being destroyed/washed away. Even otherwise, the interest of ‘FCI’ has been adequately safeguarded as it has specifically come on record that the respondents 7 to 10 have already compulsorily insured the godown for a sum of Rs.8,15,00,000/-. 37. It is the specific case of the respondents that the site of the godown does not abut “Markandey Rivulet” and they have further stated that there are number of hotels and industries located in and around that area, some of which are there for the past 30 years, which fact has not been denied by the petitioner. This being the position, it cannot be held that the location of the godown is such that it would face the risk of being washed away. Even, the reports annexed with the rejoinder to the reply of respondents 7 to 10 are not relatable to the land over which the godown has been constructed and, therefore, are of no avail to the petitioner. 38. Before parting, we may also take into consideration another disturbing feature of this case. Indisputably, the tenders had been floated by the ‘FCI’ in the year 2012 and the godown which has been constructed at the cost Rs.11.11 crores must have taken considerable time to construct. Then, what prevented the petitioner from approaching the authorities or this Court for the redressal of his so-called grievance, is not forthcoming. In case, the petitioner had bonafide grievance, he would not have been a silent spectator and would have approached the competent authority atleast, if not this Court. 39. On the basis of the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had obtained ex parte ad interim orders in his favour which are continuing till date. In case, the petitioner had bonafide grievance, he would not have been a silent spectator and would have approached the competent authority atleast, if not this Court. 39. On the basis of the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had obtained ex parte ad interim orders in his favour which are continuing till date. It has now come on record that the respondents 7 to 10 had spent huge amount of Rs.11.11 crores in carrying on the construction and were to be paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs as rental which they have been deprived because of the interim orders. 40. As observed earlier, the petitioner has grossly misused and abused the process of the Court and has filed this vexatious petition under the colour of public interest litigation for vindicating his personal grievance. The attractive brand name of the public interest litigation has been used for suspicious products of mischief. The petitioner has wasted the precious time of this Court. The judicial system has been abused and virtually brought to its knees by unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner in this case. The Court proceedings are sacrosanct and should not be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. A litigant has to approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. The Court proceeding is not a game of chess. At no cost, the stream of justice can be permitted to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. (See: Prestige Lights Ltd. versus State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 ). 41. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action versus Union of India and others (2011) 8 SCC 161 examined the principles of restitution and the abuse of process of Court and issue of doctrine of unjust enrichment of unscrupulous litigants and in order to ensure that the abuse of legal process is not done, it was also held that Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and also impose realistic costs since litigation has been turned into a fruitful industry by such litigants. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under:- “191. In consonance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience Judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under:- “191. In consonance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience Judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic costs, which the respondent or the defendant has in fact incurred in order to defend himself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be fully justified even imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. No one should be permitted to use the judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation. 192. The court’s constant endeavour must be to ensure that everyone gets just and fair treatment. The court while rendering justice must adopt a pragmatic approach and in appropriate cases realistic costs and compensation be ordered in order to discourage dishonest litigation. The object and true meaning of the concept of restitution cannot be achieved or accomplished unless the courts adopt a pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases. 197. The other aspect which has been dealt with in great detail is to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by the litigants. While adjudicating, the courts must keep the following principles in view:- (1) It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (2) When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party. (3) Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the court. (2) When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party. (3) Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the court. (4) A person in wrongful possession should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay for wrongful use of that premises fine, penalty and costs. Any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system. (5) No litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law. (6) A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrong. (7) Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. (8) The institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by delayed action of courts.” 42. For all the reasons stated above, we find no merit in these petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- each, out of which Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to the private respondents in each petition while remaining Rs.10,000/- in each petition shall be paid to the H.P. State Legal Services Authority. 43. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 44. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the file of connected matter.