JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, a resident of Mohalla-Hajiganj, Post Office-Jhauganj, Police Station- Chowk, Patna City, has invoked the Public Interest writ jurisdiction of this Court alleging that he has no direct or indirect involvement or interest in the building in question. 3. The petitioner has challenged the construction of a multi-storied commercial complex in old Chanakya Cinema Hall Campus on the eastern Exhibition Road. The building plan for construction on the said plot was submitted on 20th of August, 2011 and was approved by the Patna Municipal Corporation on 20th of September, 2012. 4. The petitioner has made a reference to C.W.J.C. No. 8152 of 2013 (Narendra Mishra Versus The State of Bihar & Others) wherein, this Court took cognizance of mushroom growth of the apartments and multi-storied buildings in the Patna Municipal Corporation area in utter disregard to the building byelaws. In the said case, this Court was constrained to pass an order to stop construction of all multi-storied buildings and apartments. It is on account of the order passed in the said case, the construction of the building in question was also stayed. Later the said petition was disposed of and the construction resumed. 5. The petitioner alleges that the building was inspected by the Engineers of Patna Municipal Corporation after completion of its construction and a detailed report dated 6th of June, 2016 was submitted pointing out the violations in the building both as per the approved plan as well as building byelaws. 6. A show-cause notice was sent to the builder/owner. The builders/land-owners have submitted reply. The grievance is that the Patna Municipal Corporation has allowed the owner/builder to finish the remaining finishing work on 10th of September, 2016 with only minimal fine in lieu of composition of the deviations. 7. The writ application came up for hearing before this Court on 30th of September, 2016 when this Court passed an order that the Patna Municipal Corporation shall not, without leave of this Court, allow the building, in question, to be completed and/or to be occupied by anyone nor shall the said building be made functional without leave of this Court. 8. 8. I.A. No. 8119 of 2016 has been filed by the intervenor namely, Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. for its impleadment as Respondent No. 9 in the present case along with I.A. No. 8120 of 2016. It is thereafter, a supplementary affidavit dated 5th of October, 2016 has been filed on behalf of intervenor as well. Whereas I.A. No. 8192 of 2016 has been filed by Respondent No. 8 for vacating the interim order dated 30th of September, 2016 and giving the complete facts as to why the present petition should not be entertained. I.A. No. 8193 of 2016 has been filed by the owner (Respondent No. 7). 9. In an Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of Respondent No. 7 it is asserted that the petition has been filed by an individual who has no concern with the locality where the building is situated rather he lives in Patna City and has filed a Public Interest Litigation against one building being constructed on the Exhibition Road. As per the petitioner, the distance between the place of residence of the petitioner and the place where the building in question is constructed is 4 K.M. whereas, as per the Respondents it is 11 K.M. It is also pointed out that on the said road, there are several high rise buildings, some under construction as well as some high rise multi-storied commercial buildings, but the petitioner has chosen the building of Respondent No. 7 alone. It is pointed out that the present is proxy litigation at the instance of one Vikash Kumar Agrawal. Vikash Kumar Agrawal filed a criminal case against the said respondent under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the said respondent has entered into an agreement for sale of a certain area in the present building for which a First Information Report was lodged and registered as Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 156/2016 and a proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also initiated against the said respondent. It is pointed out that Vikash Kumar Agrawal is filing petitions to hinder the deponent in his work at the building and is a habitual litigant and is pressurizing the police officials to impose restraint on the respondents. It is pointed out that Vikash Kumar Agrawal is filing petitions to hinder the deponent in his work at the building and is a habitual litigant and is pressurizing the police officials to impose restraint on the respondents. Vikash Kumar Agrawal has also filed a suit for specific performance claiming that he was an authorized signatory of the Company M/s Manohar Vanijaya Pvt. Ltd. who is said to have given a friendly loan to the said respondent. There are other allegations also made against Mr. Vikash Kumar Agrawal. It is pointed out that the petitioner has mischievously said in Paragraph 15 of the writ application that the road in question is 20 ft. wide, on which multistoried building with 11-15 metres in height only can be constructed, whereas the height of the present building as per the approved plan is 33.96 metres. It is pointed out that the Exhibition Road is one of the widest road in the entire town of Patna having more than 90 ft. width throughout its length and it is only after verification of the width of the road, building plan was sanctioned. The construction was started and finished as per sanctioned plan. The Engineers of the Corporation visited the apartment and prepared report after taking exact measurement. 10. On behalf of Respondent No. 8 in I.A. No. 8192 of 2016 again reference is made to the proxy litigation generated by one Vikash Kumar Agrawal who for making demands of extortion of money from Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 has initially got initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on a collusive police report and tried to blackmail Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for extorting money. Such proceedings were challenged before this Court and this Court has granted stay on 26th of May, 2016. Vikash Kumar Agrawal filed a Title Suit impleading Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 and also the lessee M/s Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. (Pantaloon) as Defendant No. 2 by fabricating document, and filed an application for interim injunction. He intervened before the Patna Municipal Corporation and prayed to demolish the entire building alleging that the said building is constructed beyond sanctioned plan. Said Vikash Kumar Agrawal has filed an appeal before the Statutory Municipal Building Tribunal which is still pending. He intervened before the Patna Municipal Corporation and prayed to demolish the entire building alleging that the said building is constructed beyond sanctioned plan. Said Vikash Kumar Agrawal has filed an appeal before the Statutory Municipal Building Tribunal which is still pending. Since no interim relief was granted by the Tribunal, therefore, through his proxy got filed the present Public Interest Litigation. It is pointed out that hundreds of multi-storied commercial complexes are erected in the entire Patna but petitioner has chosen only M/s Chankya Picture Palace by making false averments. It was also alleged that the present is not a Public Interest Litigation. 11. In I.A. No. 8119 of 2016 filed by M/s Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd., it is, inter alia, pointed out that the applicant has entered into lease agreement dated 24th of February, 2016 with Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for built-up area of approximately 28,346 sq. ft. on the ground floor, first floor and second floor in the commercial building named as Chanakya Square situated at Exhibition Road, Patna and after the said agreement, the possession of the leased area was given to the Company. The applicant has spent a sum of Rs. 50,50,000/- in the registration of the lease deed alone and a sum of Rs. 3,70,00,000/- has been spent on fittings and fixtures in the retail outlet besides hiring manpower and training for this purpose. Again there is allegation that the petition has been filed at the instance of Vikash Kumar Agrawal who has been pursuing several litigations with the landlord and the builder of the building in question. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner has invoked the Public Interest writ jurisdiction of this Court in a fair and reasonable manner or it is a proxy litigation on behalf of the rivals or the warring groups of the owner or the builder? 14. As per the petitioner, he is living 4 K.M. away from the building in question whereas, as per the respondents, the distance is 11 K.M. The fact remains that the petitioner is not living or working near the Exhibition Road where the building is situated. How he has chosen a particular building has not been explained. 14. As per the petitioner, he is living 4 K.M. away from the building in question whereas, as per the respondents, the distance is 11 K.M. The fact remains that the petitioner is not living or working near the Exhibition Road where the building is situated. How he has chosen a particular building has not been explained. As per the petitioner, the building plans were sanctioned in the year 2011 and because of an interim order passed in Narendra Mishra’s case, the construction of the building was stopped. Thus, he was aware of the sanction of the building plan and also he had knowledge about the interim order passed by this Court. Still he has allowed the building to be completed and when the clearance has been granted by the Municipal Corporation and the possession has been delivered to the intending lessees, has chosen to file the present writ application. The petitioner has not shown any activity undertaken by him in larger public interest or his credentials which inspires confidence of a bonafide exponent of public interest. He is busy body having no interest in the locality in question and chosen a building which has since been completed and given clearance by the Municipal Corporation. It smacks of mala fide and is abuse of process of law. 15. Though the respondents are categorical that the present so-called Public Interest Litigation is at the instance of Vikash Kumar Agrawal, but without going into that fact, the fact remains that the petitioner has not shown any particular reason as to why he has not invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court when the building was under construction. It shows that the petitioner has collateral motives and the present petition lacks bona fide. 16. Consequently, the present writ application is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) to be deposited with Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within one month. The costs have been imposed for the reason that there is no public interest shown by the petitioner and in fact he has made misleading statement in the writ petition leading to an interim order putting the respondents to loss.