ORDER : Jayant M. Patel, Actg. C.J. 1. The petitioner, claiming to espouse the public cause, has preferred this petition by invoking public interest jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate direction to stop the commercial quarrying of the sand from river bed of Sabarmati, near Vilaspur village of Survey No. 765 and it is prayed to restrain the excavation and other activities connected with sand quarrying. The petitioner has also prayed the consequential relief of taking appropriate action for the illegal mining. 2. We have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Bhoomi Thakore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Nirav Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and its authorities. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is illegal mining operations going on over the land bearing Survey No. 765 of village Vilaspur. The representations were made but no action is taken and, therefore, the present Public Interest Litigation. In furtherance to the contention, it was submitted that so far as the averments made in the petition are concerned, the petitioner has stated to be doing agricultural work and doing the cultivation in village Vilaspur. The statement is made by the petitioner that petition is purely in public interest of his own and not at the instance of any person or organization. However, in the documentary evidence produced at page 20, there is reference to the application made by one Bharat Naik. We will be dealing with the said aspects at a later stage but the aforesaid was to put it on record the said aspects. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in furtherance to the submission, contended that the lease has been granted but only in three cases wherein also agreement of lease has not been entered into within the prescribed time limit and such cases are of respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 6. So far as respondent No. 7 is concerned, it was submitted that the application is stated to have been pending for renewal of the lease and deemed benefit is procured of the lease in absence of any agreement. 8, 9 and 6. So far as respondent No. 7 is concerned, it was submitted that the application is stated to have been pending for renewal of the lease and deemed benefit is procured of the lease in absence of any agreement. It was submitted that unless the agreement is entered into within the prescribed limit as per the condition of lease, such lease would stand revoked and therefore it would turn to be illegal mining activity. Learned counsel further submitted that even Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as 'EC') was not obtained prior to excavation started pursuant to the lease but he did submit that as per the material produced on record, all these clearances have been granted at a later stage in the year 2015. The contention was that such circumstances would result into illegal mining and, therefore, there is a public cause to be considered by this Court for taking suitable appropriate action. 5. Whereas on behalf of the private respondent, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Mishra that the petitioner is a projected person of one Mr. Bharat Naik who, together with the other persons, have encroached over the government waste land bearing the very survey number. Special Civil Application No. 9206 of 2014 was preferred through the same advocate and in the said petition, the statement has been made that the petitioners including the said Bharat Naik together with the similarly situated 76 applicants have made representation seeking regularization of the land in dispute but there was ant the ces ear ces re, his was inaction on the part of the authority and therefore the said petition was preferred. Since the petitioners of the said petition including Bharat Naik and other similarly situated 72 persons who are the land encroachers over the government land are desirous to see that the encroached land is regularized but could not succeed, the present petition has been preferred for creating hurdle in the lawful exercise of excavation of sand from the river-bed for which the lease is validly granted. It was, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere. 6. On behalf of the respondent State, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Arunkumar Balwantrai Ojha, Assistant Geologist, wherein it has been stated that after the process was issued by this Court, the original site is verified and it is found that no illegal mining activities are going on. It was, therefore, submitted that this Court may not interfere. 6. On behalf of the respondent State, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Arunkumar Balwantrai Ojha, Assistant Geologist, wherein it has been stated that after the process was issued by this Court, the original site is verified and it is found that no illegal mining activities are going on. The relevant statement is made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit dated 10.12.2014. 7. We may, at the outset, record that had it been a case where illegal mining activities were going on, without there being any lease or without payment of royalty or a serious danger to the environment, it might stand on a different footing and different consideration, but in the present case, out of four private respondents, who are doing mining activities, three persons are expressly granted lease namely; respondents No. 8, 9 and 6. So far as respondent No. 7 is concerned, she has applied for renewal and by virtue of deeming fixation, until the application is disposed of, lease granted earlier continues. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is not a matter where the excavation of sand is being done without there being any lease. 8. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the lease deed has not been executed within the prescribed limit is also not correct, because the outer limit provided for execution of the agreement is one year, as per Clause-10 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010. Further, the contention raised about the environment clearance would also not stand in the eye of law, because even as per the petitioner, the environment clearance has been granted, but on a later date. The fact that the environment clearance has been granted and that the lease agreement are also entered into within the outer limit of one year as per Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules would show that there is no illegality as sought to be canvassed. The fact that the environment clearance has been granted and that the lease agreement are also entered into within the outer limit of one year as per Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules would show that there is no illegality as sought to be canvassed. The aforesaid is coupled with the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the State Authority, wherein at paragraph 8, it has been stated, inter alia, as under:- "I say and submit that, the office of the answering respondent had carried out an inspection at the disputed survey numbers and at the quarry leases of the private respondents on 14.11.2014, during the site inspection no illegal mining activities as alleged by the petitioner was observed by the inspection team. The detailed inspection was carried out of all the four quarry leases and excavation activities outside lease area as contended by the petitioner was not observed by the inspection team." 9. In view of the above, we find that the contention raised that the excavation activities are illegal and are conducted without there being lease runs counter to the record and cannot be accepted. 10. Attempt was made by Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner to contend that even minor lapse on the part of the State Authorities, the lease would turn to be illegal and consequently the excavation activities and he attempted to contend that such aspect may be examined by this Court. 11. We are not inclined to appreciate the contention for the simple reason that such a microscopic examination as sought to be canvassed is not called for in a public interest litigation when the Court has to keep in mind the larger public interest and has not to take judicial scrutiny for the satisfaction of the person, who brings the cause before the Court in Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction. If the Court, prima facie, finds that there is an adverse effect to the larger public interest, the Court may interfere and intercept. Considering the facts and circumstances referred to herein above, we find that there is no adverse effect to the public at large as sought to be canvassed. 12. Apart from the above, as we indicated in the earlier paragraph, the petitioner, prima facie, appears to be a projected person of those, who have made encroachment over the Government land and they are seeking regularization of their encroachment. 12. Apart from the above, as we indicated in the earlier paragraph, the petitioner, prima facie, appears to be a projected person of those, who have made encroachment over the Government land and they are seeking regularization of their encroachment. It is not a mere allegation made against the petitioner, but is also supported by some document. The petitioner, in the present petition, has taken support of the representation made by one Mr. Bharatbhai Naik, making complaint against the excavation of mine and taking away of the Government land. The said Bharatbhai Naik is one of the petitioners in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 9206 of 2014, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-R-1. The name of the said Bharatbhai Naik is one of the petitioners together with the other persons, who have preferred the petition. Further, as recorded by us herein above in the earlier paragraph, at paragraph 2 of the said petition, it has been stated that the petitioners were challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not deciding the representation dated 22.1.2014 preferred by the petitioners and other similarly situated 76 applicants seeking regularization of the land in dispute. Though the prayers made in the petition were to direct the representation to be decided, but such representation was for regularization of the encroachment or unauthorised occupation by the petitioners and other persons on whose behalf the petition was filed. The another aspect is that the photographs, which were produced in the said petition are also produced for supporting the case of the present petition. There appears to be a linkage between the petitioners of SCA No. 9206 of 2014 and the petitioner herein. Under these circumstances, we find that as the encroachers over the Government waste land have not succeeded in getting the possession regularized, in order to see that there may not be any adverse effect on their right of regularization over the very land for which the lease has been granted, the petitioner is projected as one of the so-called public interest litigants of the petition is filed on his name. There are no antecedents whatsoever on the part of the petitioner of having taken up any public cause, nor does the petitioner by filing the present petition as social activist. There are no antecedents whatsoever on the part of the petitioner of having taken up any public cause, nor does the petitioner by filing the present petition as social activist. Therefore, we are of the view that, apart from the aspect of bona fide are seriously doubtful, even the petitioner appears to be a busybody and is a projected person for the purpose of so-called public cause, which otherwise also is not on merit. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 and more particularly the concluding observations made at paragraph 181, it has been observed that the Court before entertaining PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and the Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. It has been further observed in the said paragraph that 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. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances and the record of the present case, we find that it is a fit case where exemplary cost should be awarded upon the petitioner and since as observed earlier appears to be a projected person by encroachers over the Government land, who are seeking regularization of the Government land. 14. Hence, we find that appropriate cost should be Rs. 50,000/- deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner. 15. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with the further direction that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/- within four weeks from today with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority, where the money will be utilized for the betterment of the poor litigants. If the amount of cost is not deposited and the receipt is not produced by the petitioner, office shall place the matter on judicial side for further appropriate action against the petitioner. Petition Dismissed