JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and has prayed for following reliefs:- “I. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to change the nature of the land in any eventuality as land has been shown as the Makbuja Bashindgaan Deh and the concerned Panchayat is no authority to change the nature of the land in question and if it has been done then in that eventuality orders be passed to take action against the persons involved in this episode. II. That the senior officials may kindly be appointed and directed to conclude the enquiry within a time bound manner so that the petitioner may not be suffered and the landmark place may not be destroyed. III. That the respondents be burdened with costs in view of the facts and circumstances of the matter. IV. That the entire record of the case may kindly be summoned from the respondents. V. That any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Present petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (for short ‘PIL’) by the “Etihasik Dharohar (Talaab) Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.” (for short ‘Society’) through its Secretary Shri Raghubir Singh Kanwar, who has been authorized vide resolution dated 2nd February, 2016 to file instant Civil Writ Petition in this Court against action of the respondents whereby, they have indulged in changing the user of Historical Water Pond at Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. (for short ‘Historic Pond’). 3. It emerges from the pleadings on the record that the petitioner-Society has been allegedly constituted by the residents of area for protection of the historical monuments and places. Though petitioner-Society has placed on record resolution dated 2.2.2016, Annexure PA, whereby one Shri Raghubir Singh Kanwar has been authorized to approach this Court for filing of instant writ petition but without placing any document on record containing aims and object of the Society. Though petitioner-Society has placed on record resolution dated 2.2.2016, Annexure PA, whereby one Shri Raghubir Singh Kanwar has been authorized to approach this Court for filing of instant writ petition but without placing any document on record containing aims and object of the Society. Perusal of Annexure R-1, annexed with rejoinder, suggests that Raghubir Singh Kanwar, Secretary of the petitioner-Society vide letter dated 8.4.2016 addressed to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., made a request to register the Society. Further perusal of Annexure R-1 suggests that on 24.1.2016, a meeting of General Public was convened under the Chairmanship of Mr. Hans Raj Thakur, wherein issue with regard to ‘Historic Pond’ was discussed and aforesaid Society was formed in the name and style of “Etihasik Dharohar (Talaab) Bachao Sanghrash Samiti, Kunihar. Careful perusal of aforesaid letter dated 8.4.2016 clearly suggests that though resolution to form a Society was passed on 24.1.2016, but communication was sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. for its registration on 8.4.2016, enclosing therewith resolution and bye-laws of the Society mutually approved and adopted by the members of the Society. 4. At this stage, it may be noticed that present petition was filed by the petitioner-Society on 5.2.2016, when the petitioner-Society was not registered. Moreover, no document worth the name has been placed on record to demonstrate that issue, which is being raised in the present petition, was deliberated/discussed at length in the meeting of the Society before approaching this Court by way of present petition. 5. It is averred that some miscreants, who are hand in glove with the Gram Panchayat, Kunihar, (for short ‘GPK’), have attempted to convert the ‘Historic Pond’ into stadium in the month of January, 2016 and constant efforts are being made by them to change the very nature of the ‘Historic Pond’, which is in violation of law. As per petitioner, ‘Historic Pond’ is 500 years old and is a landmark place. Petitioner by way of Annexure-P1 has placed on record documents to substantiate his plea with regard to existence of ‘Historic Pond’ which is famous for Water Lilly plants. Petitioner has further averred in the petition that prior to January, 2016, respondents have taken various steps for developments of this ‘Historic Pond’ and invested huge amount for the beautification of the same. Petitioner has further averred in the petition that prior to January, 2016, respondents have taken various steps for developments of this ‘Historic Pond’ and invested huge amount for the beautification of the same. As per petitioner, very nature of water pond situated at Kunihar cannot be allowed to change at the behest of some persons having vested interest, to convert this ‘Historic Pond’ into stadium. Petitioner has also placed on record revenue papers (Annexures P-3 to P-7) to demonstrate that land in question has been depicted as “Rafaye Aam”, owned by State of Himachal Pradesh. It has been specifically stated in the petition that as per column-5 of the Jamabandi, land in question has been prescribed as “Makbuja Bartan Bashindgaan Deh”, meaning thereby that the land is in possession of the residents of that area for their use. Petitioner, by way of Annexure P-8 has placed on record statement of funds to demonstrate that in the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, respondents have invested an amount of Rs.49,23,440/- for development of the ‘Historic Pond’. Petitioner has also contended that the respondents have indulged into illegal dumping of the soil as well as illegal felling of the trees for the construction of the road and dumped the soil/earth, removed from the site of construction of road, in the ‘Historic Pond’. Petitioner has also placed on record photographs as well as representations sent by it to His Excellency Governor of Himachal Pradesh intimating therein the illegal action being taken by the respondents. Petitioner has stated in the petition that despite repeated reminders to the competent authorities, no action, whatsoever, has been taken till date to stop illegal activity being carried out at the spot. Petitioner has leveled serious allegations against the residents of area as well as officials of Government, who, as per petitioner, have and are indulging in said illegal activities. It has also been averred in the petition that the petitioner has not been supplied information under Right to Information Act with regard to the latest status of ‘Historic Pond’, and despite several reminders, no steps, whatsoever, have been taken by the authorities concerned to supply the same to the petitioner but the same has been sent to the Block Development Officer, Kunihar for supplying the information (Annexures P-13 and P-14). It has been specifically averred in the petition that concerned Panchayat has no authority, whatsoever, to change the nature of the land in question. Petitioner-Society has prayed that necessary directions may be issued to the respondents not to change the nature of the land in any eventuality and necessary inquiry may be conducted against erring officials as well as private persons, who have indulged in illegal dumping of earth/soil in the ‘Historic Pond’ solely with a view to convert the same into stadium. 6. Perusal of order dated 16.2.2016, passed by this Court, suggests that after taking cognizance of the averments contained in this petition, notices were issued to respondents and parties were directed to maintain status quo till further orders. Respondents, pursuant to the notices issued by this Court, filed detailed replies refuting all the allegations/ averments contained in the writ petition. 7. Respondents No.1, 4 to 6, 10, 11 and 14 filed one consolidated reply and stated that petition preferred by the petitioner-Society is not maintainable as it suffers from legal infirmities. Respondents have categorically stated in the reply that petitioner-Society is not aggrieved by any action of them and they have been unnecessarily impleaded as party-respondents just to confuse and complicate the matter. The respondents specifically stated in reply that allegations leveled against them in the petition are incorrect because none of them, in any manner, is related to the using of pond as alleged by the petitioner. The respondents stated in their replies that ‘Historic Pond’ is being looked after by the local people through ‘GPK’. In para-6 of their reply these respondents have categorically stated that ‘GPK’ in their meeting of Gram Sabha held on 20.10.2015 vide resolution No. 10, Annexure R-1, resolved as follows:- “since the Pond remains dry for 8 to 9 months out of 12 months in a year and 3 to 4 feet of water gets accumulated in the Pond only during the rainy season. Therefore, one part of the Pond should be developed as a proper pond where there is enough water throughout the year and water sport activities and fish pond will be taken up as part of beautification. Therefore, one part of the Pond should be developed as a proper pond where there is enough water throughout the year and water sport activities and fish pond will be taken up as part of beautification. Another part of the pond would be developed as a sports stadium and the portion along the road would be developed as a shopping complex.” This resolution was passed by the Gram Sabha and the best course for the petitioner was to present its case before the Gram Sabha. 8. Similarly respondents No.3 and 7 filed consolidated reply duly accompanied by the affidavit of Superintending Engineer, 3rd Circle, HPPWD, Solan, wherein they specifically denied the averments/allegations contained in the writ petition in toto. In their reply they specifically denied that Public Works Department (for short ‘PWD’) at any point of time indulged in doing the illegal dumping on the Government land i.e. ‘Historic Pond’ or leveling the same by deploying departmental machinery. Aforesaid respondents have specifically stated in the reply that so far the deployment of workers/departmental Buldozer is concerned, they are ready and willing to place on record the Log Book of the Dozer, which would suggest that at no point of time it was used for changing the nature of the ‘Historic Pond’ as alleged by the petitioner. It has also been stated on behalf of the respondents that during routine maintenance of the road i.e. Shimla-Kunihar-Ramshehar-Nalagarh State Highway, which was carried out in the month of January, 2016, a Road Roller was deployed for patch work and being heavy machinery, was ordered to be put adjacent to the ‘Historic Pond’ during off hours to avoid traffic congestion. These respondents have specifically denied the allegations of the petitioner-Society that they dumped any material in the ‘Historic Pond’. These respondents have categorically stated in the reply that at no point of time, any steps, whatsoever, were ever taken by PWD to develop or beautify the Historic Pond’, as alleged in the writ petition. 9. Respondent No. 13 i.e. Block Development Officer, (for short ‘BDO’) Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. also denied the allegations leveled in the writ petition, however, he admitted that B.D.O., Kunihar spent approximately Rs. 61 lacs under various schemes. 9. Respondent No. 13 i.e. Block Development Officer, (for short ‘BDO’) Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. also denied the allegations leveled in the writ petition, however, he admitted that B.D.O., Kunihar spent approximately Rs. 61 lacs under various schemes. He has also denied that no information under RTI Act was supplied to the petitioner and stated that pursuant to application received from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan, on 3.2.2016, appropriate information was supplied to the petitioner. 10. Respondents No.2, 8 and 9 also refuted the allegations/averments contained in the Writ Petition. They specifically stated in reply that no work has ever been executed by them for the development and beautification of this ‘Historic Pond’. Allegations with regard to illegal felling of trees beside the road have been specifically denied by these respondents. However, it has been stated that PWD authorities oftenly execute the earth cutting work for widening of the road at narrow turns/black spots. The earth cutting on these spots is within the acquired/controlled width of roads of PWD authorities. As per these respondents, no incidence of felling of trees ever came to their knowledge during the course of filling of ‘Historic Pond’, as alleged by the petitioner. It has been specifically stated in the reply of these respondents that Forest Department is committed to save and grow the forest wealth and no instance of illegal felling of trees has been noticed in and around Kunihar area, as such, allegation of the petitioner qua illegal felling is wrong. 11. Gram Panchayat, Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. filed a separate detailed reply, perusal of which clearly suggests that General House of ‘GPK’ in its meeting held on 20.10.2015 unanimously resolved that the area of ‘Historic Pond’, which is in possession of Gram Panchayat since long and is being maintained and looked after by it, be converted into one part as a ‘Talab’ facing towards temple and remaining part as a ‘Stadium’ and as such allegation of the petitioner-Society against other respondents, who are functionaries of the State of Himachal Pradesh, are wrong, baseless and imaginary. 12. Petitioner, by way of filing rejoinders, refuted the contents contained in the respective replies filed by the respondents and reiterated the contents of the writ petition. 12. Petitioner, by way of filing rejoinders, refuted the contents contained in the respective replies filed by the respondents and reiterated the contents of the writ petition. It is submitted that there are some persons having vested interest, who are indulging in illegal dumping of the soil in the ‘Historic Pond’ only for the political gains. Petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamla Devi and others, (2001)6 SCC 496 , wherein it has been held that Forest, Tanks, Ponds, Hillocks and Mountains etc. are nature’s bounty as they help to maintain the delicate ecology balance, as such, they need to be protected for that reason. Petitioner further stated in the rejoinder that as per entries made in column No.4 of revenue papers, residents of area have got “Bartandari Right” on the said “Historic Pond” and as such, nobody can be allowed to change the very nature and use of the “Historic Pond”. Petitioner also stated that ‘GPK’ has no right, whatsoever, to take decision with regard to change of use of land on behalf of residents of that area. 13. Mr. Raman Parashar and Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner-Society, vehemently argued that no person or Gram Sabha can be allowed to change the very nature of the ‘Historic Pond’ which is 500 years old in the name of beautification. Mr. Prashar forcefully contended that there is no occasion, whatsoever, for the respondents to convert the area of ‘Historic Pond’ into stadium and few vested interests, who are hand in glove with the members of the ‘GPK’, cannot be allowed to take decision for converting the ‘Historic Pond’ into stadium ignoring the will of residents of that area, who totally oppose any change in the nature of the ‘Historic Pond’. 14. Mr. Parashar, during arguments, invited the attention of this Court to the reply filed by respondent No.15, ‘GPK’ to substantiate his plea that efforts are being made to change the very land use and nature of the ‘Historic Pond’ by the Gram Panchayat without there being any necessity at the behest of some persons having vested interest. 14. Mr. Parashar, during arguments, invited the attention of this Court to the reply filed by respondent No.15, ‘GPK’ to substantiate his plea that efforts are being made to change the very land use and nature of the ‘Historic Pond’ by the Gram Panchayat without there being any necessity at the behest of some persons having vested interest. He forcefully contended that if respondents are not restrained from carrying out so called beautification work at the ‘Historic Pond’, great prejudice would be caused to the residents of the area, whose emotions are deeply connected with that of 500 years old ‘Historic Pond’ situated just below the historic temple. He also submitted that if the proposal put forth on behalf of the Gram Panchayat is accepted, ‘Historic Pond’ would loose its sanctity and natural charm and construction of shops, if any, allowed in and around that ‘Historic Pond’ the atmosphere of that place would be changed and great loss would be caused to ecology of that area. 15. Shri Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General, vehemently argued that the petitioner has no locus, whatsoever, to file the present petition in the shape of Public Interest Litigation. Mr. Dogra forcefully contended that petitioner in the name of Public Interest Litigation has caused great damage to the residents of that area because after 16.2.2016, respondents have not been able to carry out any work on the site in terms of the resolution passed by the ‘GPK’. Mr. Dogra, while making his arguments, also invited the attention of this Court to Annexure-PA i.e. resolution, to demonstrate that there is nothing in the resolution suggestive of the fact that present petition has been filed in the Public Interest, rather perusal of the reply filed by respondent No.15 clearly establishes that present petition is a proxy litigation filed at the behest of those persons who have lost elections of Gram Panchayat conducted recently. As per Mr. Dogra, bare perusal of the petition suggests that the petitioner has not placed on record any material showing his bona-fide and suggestive of the fact that Society is engaged for protecting public interest. As per Mr. Dogra, bare perusal of the petition suggests that the petitioner has not placed on record any material showing his bona-fide and suggestive of the fact that Society is engaged for protecting public interest. He also drew the attention of this Court to letter dated 8.4.2010, Annexure R-1, placed on record by the petitioner alongwith rejoinder, to demonstrate that at the time of filing of the petition so called Society was not even registered and as such present petition being frivolous deserves dismissal with heavy costs. 16. Mr. Dogra further contended that the present petition is not maintainable at all because the petitioner has not been able to establish/prove the locus to file the present petition. He stated that under the garb of this petition, some persons, having vested interest, are trying to stall the beautification of so called ‘Historic Pond’ which is admittedly being constructed for the benefit of public at large. He forcefully contended that bare perusal of the reply filed by respondent No.15 suggests that project of beautification of ‘Historic Pond’ has been undertaken by the Gram Panchayat taking into consideration the pros and cons and no damage, whatsoever, as has been alleged in the writ petition, has been caused to the ‘Historic Pond’. He also invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of SDO(C), Arki dated 24.3.2016, convened in compliance to the orders dated 16.6.2016 passed by this Court, to demonstrate that every effort is being made by ‘GPK’ as well as authorities to protect the ‘Historic Pond’ which is actually dying. He also contended that beautification work undertaken by the ‘GPK’ is solely in the interest of residents of Kunihar and in this regard proper plan has been prepared by the respondents and mere on the false and frivolous allegations at the behest of some persons having vested interest, on-going construction on the spot cannot be ordered to be stopped. He prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 17. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the ‘GPK’, vehemently argued that filing of present petition in the name of Public Interest is a sheer abuse of process of law and as such same deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. Mr. He prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 17. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel representing the ‘GPK’, vehemently argued that filing of present petition in the name of Public Interest is a sheer abuse of process of law and as such same deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. Mr. Chauhan also argued that it stands duly proved on record that the instant petition has been filed at the behest of certain persons having vested interest, who are either defeated candidates in the recently held elections of ‘GPK’ or are related to encroachers on the Government land on road side near the intended site of Stadium-cum-Talaab. He forcefully contended that over the period of time, the so called ‘Historic Pond’ has been reduced only into a marshy land giving rise to breeding of mosquitoes and other insects posing threat to the population. Since, there were number of complaints in this regard from the residents of that area, Panchayat, with a view to maintain and beautify the ‘Historic Pond’, has also constructed a stadium nearby, so as to ensure its continued upkeep and maintenance. 18. Mr. Chauhan also invited the attention of this Court to the resolution passed in the meeting held on 20.10.2015, wherein it was unanimously resolved that area of ‘Historic Pond’, which is in possession of ‘GPK’, be converted into two parts - the part facing towards temple as a Talaab (‘Historic Pond’) and the remaining part as a stadium. He contended that a bare perusal of the resolution suggests that entire exercise is being done with a view to clean the ‘Historic Pond’, which, with the passage of time, has turned into a dumping site for sewerage and waste water coming from the houses/shops constructed in and around the ‘Historic Pond’. 19. Mr. Chauhan also contended in this regard that ‘GPK’, after election, unanimously passed resolution dated 23.1.2016 resorting to take up the matter with the Government for transferring the said land in the name of Panchayati Raj Department for its better upkeep, maintenance and beautification and SDM has submitted the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for doing the needful. Mr. Mr. Chauhan also contended in this regard that ‘GPK’, after election, unanimously passed resolution dated 23.1.2016 resorting to take up the matter with the Government for transferring the said land in the name of Panchayati Raj Department for its better upkeep, maintenance and beautification and SDM has submitted the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for doing the needful. Mr. Chauhan, vehemently argued that the entire exercise is being undertaken in the best interest of public of the area with active participation of the residents of that area and as such present petition, which admittedly has been filed with some vested interest, deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. 20. At this stage, it may be noticed that this Court, during the proceedings of the case on 19.5.2016, requested the learned Advocate General to obtain expert opinion in terms of Annexure R-15/2 i.e. resolution dated 20.10.2015 passed by ‘GPK’. 21. During the pendency of the petition, learned Advocate General, by way of application moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, placed on record proceedings of meeting held on 24.5.2016 alongwith site plan of proposed stadium in compliance to order dated 16.6.2016. It would be profitable to reproduce the minutes of the meeting held on 24.5.2016 in terms of orders passed by this Court: “Proceedings of the meeting held in the Chairmanship of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki regarding CWP No. 311/2016 titled as Etihasik Dharohar Talaab Bachao Sangharsh Samiti vs. State of H.P. and others on dated 24/05/2016 as per direction of the Ld. Advocate General of State of H.P. The following representatives of the departments attended the meeting are as follows: 1. Sh. Ravi Kumar Bains, BDO Kunihar Block. 2. Sh. ajay Kuma soni, Executive Engineer H.P.P.W.D. Divison Arki. 3. Sh. Joginder Singh Chauhan, Executive Engineer, I&PH Div. Arki. 4. Sh. Rajeshwar Singh Jaswal, DFO Forest Division Kunihar. 5. Mrs. Aruna Thakur, President, G.P. Kunihar. Sd/- Sub Divisional Officer Arki, Distt.Solan, HP. Meeting regarding CWP.No.311/2006. Proceedings The Chairman welcomed all the present representatives and briefed the matter and sought their suggestions into that context as per the discussion held with Ld. Advocate General Himachal Pradesh. Arki. 4. Sh. Rajeshwar Singh Jaswal, DFO Forest Division Kunihar. 5. Mrs. Aruna Thakur, President, G.P. Kunihar. Sd/- Sub Divisional Officer Arki, Distt.Solan, HP. Meeting regarding CWP.No.311/2006. Proceedings The Chairman welcomed all the present representatives and briefed the matter and sought their suggestions into that context as per the discussion held with Ld. Advocate General Himachal Pradesh. (A) The executive Engineer HPPWD Division Arki stated that from the perusal of the resolution and the facts shown by the representative of the panchayat the land has already been surrendered for the expansion of already declared N.H., so the stadium and Pond both can be constructed as per the proposal shown nearly 85x90 meters in length and width (dimensions of proposed stadium) as shown in the attached plan and the rest area is nearly 6 bighas can be used for the purpose of Pond. The filtration rate can be increased as suggested by Executive Engineer, I.P.H. Arki and their recommendations. In this way both the purpose i.e. storage of water as well as the stadium can be constructed by the Panchayat in this area for the larger interest of the people. (B) The Executive Engineer I&PH Division Arki stated that presently this Pond (talaab) is acting as recharge pond. Water entering in the pond percolates into the ground. Alternative use of pond area should be ensured in such a way that sufficient area be kept to accommodate rain water for percolation. This can be achieved in the following ways:- (a) By keeping a channel of sufficient size in the periphery of the proposed stadium which will receive/accommodate rain water for subsequent percolation into the ground. (b) The filling material for stadium should be granular and in addition, open jointed pipes can be kept at the bottom so as sufficient percolation rate can be achieved below the stadium as well. (c) Percolation wells at different locations can also be constructed to increase the rate of filtration/percolation. If by taking above precautions the access rain water still available the same can be collected in a separate tank, which can be subsequently used for irrigation purpose. In case, sufficient space for stadium and spectators will not be available the above structures can also be covered to achieve the both purposes. If by taking above precautions the access rain water still available the same can be collected in a separate tank, which can be subsequently used for irrigation purpose. In case, sufficient space for stadium and spectators will not be available the above structures can also be covered to achieve the both purposes. (C) The Block Development Officer Kunihar stated that the area of the Talaab which is nearly 18-10 bighas and one part of it is 0-15 bighas which is under the control of Panchayat is looked afgter by the local Panchayat. The department has no objection regarding the resolution No. 10 passed by Gram Sabha on dated 20.10.2015 for beautification of Talab and construction of stadium. In case local Panchayat construct stadium and beautify the Talab (Pond) our department will provide full technical assistance for the said purpose. As far as the earlier expenditure incurred to the tune of Rs.49 lacs for the construction and beautification of Talab that portion of the Talab will not be affected by the proposed construction. (D) The Divisional Forest Officer, Kunihar stated that the proposed construction of stadium will not affect the greenery and vegetation of local area and no trees will be cut down for the said purpose. There is no flow of water into the Talab from any water source (Bawli) of forest department and no forest land is being used for the proposed construction. (E) The President Gram Panchayat Kunihar stated that the Gram Sabha has passed resolution No.10 on dated 20.10.2015 to construct stadium and beautification of Talab. As per statement of President, G.P. Kunihar total land recorded as gairmumkin talab is 18-10 bighas. Over 11-4 bighas of land stadium would be constructed and 1-6 bighas would be left for expansion of road and remaining 6 bighas of land will remain for talab and Panchayat will maintain quantity of water in Talab round the year. Proposed site plan of stadium, road and talab is attached with this proceedings which is prepared by Book Engineer Kunihar. In additional to this if any of the department gives technical advice favourable to general interest, the Panchayat would consider the same. Sd/- Chairman-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (C), Arki, District Solan, H.P.” 22. Proposed site plan of stadium, road and talab is attached with this proceedings which is prepared by Book Engineer Kunihar. In additional to this if any of the department gives technical advice favourable to general interest, the Panchayat would consider the same. Sd/- Chairman-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (C), Arki, District Solan, H.P.” 22. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as expert report made available on record suggests that there is one water pond at Kunihar, which, with the passage of time has reduced into a marshy land and as such ‘GPK’ solely with a view to protect the same and ensure that there is continued supply of water to ‘Historic Pond’, passed resolution dated 20.10.2015 resolving therein that area of ‘Historic Pond’, which is being maintained and looked after by Gram Panchayat, be converted into one part as a Talab facing towards temple and remaining part as a stadium. It also emerges from the meeting held on 20/21.12.2015 that entire exercise is being undertaken by the Gram Panchayat to ensure that Pond is cleaned and leveled, and no sewerage and waste water is flown into the same. A careful perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 15 leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the entire exercise to beautify the ‘Historic Pond’ and to construct a stadium is in the public interest and all efforts are being made by the Gram Panchayat to replenish and sustain continued water supply to the said ‘Historic Pond’. 23. On the other hand, bare perusal of the averments contained in the writ petition clearly suggests that petitioner-Society has not approached this Court with clean hands, rather an attempt has been made by misrepresenting the facts to stall the decision taken by ‘GPK’, which is admittedly in the Public Interest. Petitioner-Society, which claimed itself to be a public spirited Society, has nowhere stated in the writ petition that what prejudice would be caused to the residents of the area, in case ‘GPK’ is allowed to go ahead with the work of beautification of Talaab as well as construction of the stadium at the site. Petitioner-Society, which claimed itself to be a public spirited Society, has nowhere stated in the writ petition that what prejudice would be caused to the residents of the area, in case ‘GPK’ is allowed to go ahead with the work of beautification of Talaab as well as construction of the stadium at the site. Petitioner-Society though has opposed the proposal floated by the Gram Panchayat for beautification of Talaab and construction of the stadium at the site but has not suggested any remedial measures to protect the said pond, whereas respondent No.15, ‘GPK’ has categorically placed on record the resolution unanimously passed by its members to demonstrate that entire exercise is being undertaken to protect the ‘Historic Pond’, which with the passage of time, has turned into a small water pond having no regular source of water. It also emerges from the reply of respondent No.15 ‘GPK’ that many people including the petitioner have raised illegal construction in and around the alleged ‘Historic Pond’ and they, just apprehending that action would be taken against them, are opposing the proposal of the ‘GPK’ by filing frivolous writ petition. 24. Careful perusal of the averments contained in the writ petition suggests that wild allegations have been leveled against the various departments of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner, without their being any specific proof has alleged that PWD has resorted to dumping of soil at the time of construction of road, in the ‘Historic Pond’. Similarly, petitioner, without there being any basis, has stated in the petition that respondents with a view to beautify the Talaab/Pond have indulged in illegal felling of the trees. This Court, while hearing the matter at hand, had occasion to go through the reply filed by all the respondents, wherein they have specifically denied the allegations leveled by petitioner. Since petitioner has not placed on record any document in support of averments contained in the writ petition, this Court sees no reasons, whatsoever, to disbelieve the version put forth on behalf of the respondents in their replies, which are duly supported by the affidavits sworn in by the competent authorities. Rather, this Court, after perusing the replies filed by the respondents, is compelled to observe that present petition filed by the petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law. Rather, this Court, after perusing the replies filed by the respondents, is compelled to observe that present petition filed by the petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law. After perusing the material available on record, this Court has no doubt in its mind that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, rather, false allegations have been made against the respondents solely with a view to procure relief, which could not be otherwise granted. 25. Bare perusal of the report of the Expert Committee, which has been reproduced above, suggests that no prejudice, whatsoever, would be caused to the residents of the area in case ‘GPK’ is allowed to go ahead with the proposal of beautification of ‘Historic Pond’ as well as construction of stadium. In the report submitted by the Committee, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Arki has categorically stated that the stadium can be constructed having dimension of 85x90 meters approximately, as shown in the attached plan, and the rest land (around 6 bighas) can be used for the purpose of pond. It has specifically come in the report of the Committee that if the proposal supplied by the Gram Panchayat is accepted, public at large will be benefited. 26. Similarly, in the report reproduced above, Executive Engineer I&PH Division, Arki, specifically stated that presently this pond is acting as recharge pond, water entering in the pond percolates into the ground and as such alternative use of pond area should be ensured in such a way that sufficient area be kept to accommodate rain water. BDO, Kunihar also informed the Committee that in case the local Panchayat constructs stadium and beautifies the ‘Historic Pond’, full technical assistance would be rendered by the Department. 27. Similarly, President, ‘GPK’ informed the Committee that total land recorded as “Gairmumkin Talaab” is 18-10 bighas and over 11-14 bighas of land stadium would be constructed, 1-6 bighas would be left for expansion of road and remaining 6 bighas of land would remain for ‘Historic Pond’ and Panchayat would maintain quantity of water in the ‘Historic Pond’ round the year. 28. After careful perusal of the report of the Expert Committee, this Court has no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the present matter where admittedly ‘GPK’ has undertaken the project of beautification of ‘Historic Pond’ as well as for construction of stadium in Public Interest. 28. After careful perusal of the report of the Expert Committee, this Court has no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the present matter where admittedly ‘GPK’ has undertaken the project of beautification of ‘Historic Pond’ as well as for construction of stadium in Public Interest. Rather, perusal of the proposal as well as report of Expert Committee clearly demonstrates that in case proposal mooted by the ‘GPK’ is allowed to sustain, the dying pond would be protected and beautified and there will be continue flow of water in the same. Similarly, there is no harm in case some part of huge land, which is available adjacent to the pond, is utilized by Gram Panchayat for stadium. Hence, this Court sees no illegality, whatsoever, in the proposal of beautification of ‘Historic Pond’ as well as construction of stadium mooted by respondent No. 15 ‘GPK’. This Court is pained to observe that the petitioner-Society through the instant petition has attempted to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court to procure those reliefs which would have not been granted to them in any eventuality on the basis of the material available on record. Hence, such action of filing of so-called PIL by petitioner-Society deserves to be deprecated and condemned. 29. In the present case, the petitioner-society, which was not admittedly registered at the time of filing of the petition, has only placed on record resolution Ex.PA passed by its members and no other material has been placed on record to point out that proposal floated by the ‘GPK’ respondent No.15 for beautification of the ‘Historic Pond’ and construction of stadium is not in public interest and implementation of the same would be in violation of the guidelines framed by the respondents-State as well as Courts from time to time. 30. This Court vide judgment in CWP No. 9480 of 2014, titled: Vijay Kumar Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 09.01.2015, has already issued the following guidelines as far as filing of PIL is concerned:- “29. 30. This Court vide judgment in CWP No. 9480 of 2014, titled: Vijay Kumar Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 09.01.2015, has already issued the following guidelines as far as filing of PIL is concerned:- “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 interloper 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.” However, in the present case there is no compliance, whatsoever, of the guidelines, referred to herein above, and, as such, present petition cannot be termed as PIL in any manner and the same deserves to be dismissed. 31. Though, by way of present petition, it has been claimed that the same has been filed in public interest but, as clearly emerged from the record and as discussed hereinabove, there is no material, whatsoever, available on record which could persuade this Court to believe that the petitioner is a ‘Pro Bono Publico’ and petition is filed in public interest. Rather, a careful perusal/analysis of the documents available on record suggests that it is a handy work of some persons having vested interest, who certainly for extraneous considerations do not want the Project like the present one to come up in the area, which is admittedly need of hour. 32. During the arguments, this Court had an occasion to sift the entire documentary evidence made available on record as well as pleadings of the parties, perusal whereof clearly suggests that the Project, which is being sought to be closed by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, is in the interest of public at large. 32. During the arguments, this Court had an occasion to sift the entire documentary evidence made available on record as well as pleadings of the parties, perusal whereof clearly suggests that the Project, which is being sought to be closed by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, is in the interest of public at large. Careful reading of the specific reply given by the respondent-Department to the averments made in the writ petition clearly depicts that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, rather an attempt has been made to hoodwink the Court by concealing material facts, that too, solely with a view to obtain orders from the Court restraining the respondents from beautifying the ‘Historic Pond’ and constructing the stadium at Kunihar. None of the averments, with regard to illegal felling of trees for the construction of the road and dumping the soil/earth, removed from the site of construction of road, in the ‘Historic Pond’, have been admitted by the respondents in their respective replies. To the contrary, the replies filed by the respondents which are duly supported by affidavits of responsible officers of the State, suggests that necessary precautions/measures have been taken by the Department to protect the ecology/environment before granting necessary permission for beautifying the ‘Historic Pond’ and constructing the stadium at Kunihar. Moreover, as has been noticed above, except for one resolution authorizing the petitioner to file petition, which is available on record, no document whatsoever has been made available on record, by the petitioner-Society to substantiate the averments contained in the writ petition. 33. Hence in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that present petition can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as PIL. Rather contents of the same appear to be frivolous, vexatious and far-far away from the correct position on the spot. 34. This court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court have repeatedly expressed concern with regard to growing menace of so called PILs, whereby some persons having vested interest, by concealing material facts, attempt to rope in the Courts in the name of public interest. 35. Hon’ble Apex Court expressing its serious concern over misuse of PIL has repeatedly observed that use of the PIL has to be done with care and caution so that it is not misused by certain people having vested interest. 36. 35. Hon’ble Apex Court expressing its serious concern over misuse of PIL has repeatedly observed that use of the PIL has to be done with care and caution so that it is not misused by certain people having vested interest. 36. Hon’ble Apex Court in case Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others (2014)1 SCC 161 , observed as under: “24. Ordinarily, after so stating we would have proceeded to scan the anatomy of the Act, the Rules, the concept of the Scheme under the Act and other facets but we have thought it imperative to revisit certain authorities pertaining to public interest litigation, its abuses and the way sometimes the courts perceive the entire spectrum. It is an ingenious and adroit innovation of the judge-made law within the constitutional parameters and serves as a weapon for certain purposes. It is regarded as a weapon to mitigate grievances of the poor and the marginalized sections of the society and to check the abuse of power at the hands of the Executive and further to see that the necessitous law and order situation, which is the duty of the State, is properly sustained, the people in impecuniosities do not die of hunger, the national economy is not jeopardized; the rule of law is not imperiled; human rights are not endangered, and probity, transparency and integrity in governance remain in a constant state of stability. The use of the said weapon has to be done with care, caution and circumspection. We have a reason to say so, as in the case at hand there has been a fallacious perception not only as regards the merits of the case but also there is an erroneous approach in issuance of direction pertaining to recovery of the sum from the holder of the post. We shall dwell upon the same at a later stage. 25. As advised at present, we may refer to certain authorities in the field in this regard. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 Bhagwati, J., (as his Lordship then was) had observed thus: (SCC p.183, para 9) “9. We shall dwell upon the same at a later stage. 25. As advised at present, we may refer to certain authorities in the field in this regard. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 Bhagwati, J., (as his Lordship then was) had observed thus: (SCC p.183, para 9) “9. ….When the Court entertains public interest litigation, it does not do so in a caviling spirit or in a confrontational mood or with a view to tilting at executive authority or seeking to usurp it, but its attempt is only to ensure observance of social and economic rescue programme, legislative as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the havenots and the handicapped and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also the constitutional obligation of the executive. The Court is thus merely assisting in the realization of the constitutional objectives.” “26. In Dr. D.C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378 the Constitution Bench, while entertaining a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of the petitioner therein, observed that it is the right of every citizen to insist that he should be governed by laws made in accordance with the Constitution and not laws made by the executive in violation of the constitutional provisions. It has also been stated therein that the rule of law constitutes the core of our Constitution and it is the essence of rule of law that the exercise of the power by the State whether it be the legislature or the executive or any other authority should be within the constitutional limitation and if any practice is adopted by the executive which is in flagrant violation of the constitutional limitations, a member of the public would have sufficient interest to challenge such practice and it would be the constitutional duty of the Court to entertain the writ petition. 27. In Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614 the Court has opined that 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 as public interest litigation. Commenting on entertaining public interest litigations without being careful of the parameters by the High Courts the learned Judges observed as follows: (SCC p. 617, para 5) “5. Commenting on entertaining public interest litigations without being careful of the parameters by the High Courts the learned Judges observed as follows: (SCC p. 617, para 5) “5. ‘16....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. (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 , SCC p.358, para 16)” Thereafter, giving a note on caution, the Court stated: “6. ‘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.” (B. Singh versus Union of India (2004)3 SCC 363 , SCC p.372, para 12)” (pp.175-176) 37. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, (2010)3 SCC 402 , while dealing with the issue of growing menace of Public Interest in the Country, observed as under:- “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and nonmonetary directions by the courts. 144. In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Others (2002)2 SCC 333 , this Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. Accordingly, the court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals "acting bona-fide." Secondly, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of "exemplary costs" as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest litigations. Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High Courts to be more selective in entertaining the public interest litigations. 153. In J. Jayalalitha v. Government of T.N. (1999) 1 SCC 53 , this court laid down that public interest litigation can be filed by any person challenging the misuse or improper use of any public property including the political party in power for the reason that interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to a larger public interest. 155. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware V. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 , this court expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the court under the garb of public interest litigation and observed (SCC p.595, para 12) that the “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 court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations….” 38. Perusal of the observations made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, clearly suggest that, PIL cannot be allowed to be used as a tool by irresponsible and unscrupulous litigants to serve their vested interests in the garb of public interest. 39. In the present case we are constrained to observe that no material whatsoever has been made available from where it could be inferred that the present petition has been filed in the Public Interest, rather, careful perusal of the pleadings on record persuaded this Court to draw a conclusion that the present petitioner with some vested interests has made an attempt by filing this frivolous petition to obtain illegal orders from the Court in the name of PIL. Moreover, careful perusal of the pleadings on record nowhere suggests that petitioner fulfills the criteria as has been identified/laid down by this Court in Vijay Kumar Gupta’s case supra which can persuade this Court to consider the instant petition as a PIL. 40. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any. Interim direction, if any, stands vacated.