ORDER : S.S. Sundar, J. This writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person, for a Mandamus, to direct respondents 1 to 6, to consider his representation, dated 27.05.2015 and further to direct respondents 1 to 6, to withhold the license/permission granted to the 7th respondent, till the violation of rules are corrected. 2. It is to be noted that this petitioner had earlier filed a petition to implead himself as a party in an earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015 and after dismissal of the said Writ Petition as withdrawn, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for similar relief. The petitioner has admitted that he had earlier approached the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking action against the 7th respondent, for violation of environmental norms and latter withdrew the same after knowing that such application is time barred and the petitioner is opposing the establishment of a Multi Speciality Hospital in a semi urban area three years after its construction mainly on the ground that the building rules and norms are vitiated. Taking into account the serious objections raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent, and the fact that the petitioner has given address where he is not residing, we propose to examine the locus standi of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has stated that he is a resident of Mdurai. He stated in his affidavit that he came to know the construction of a new Hospital by name and style, "Meenatchi Hospital" at Thanjavur, when he made a visit to Meenatchi Mission Hospital, Madurai. On another occasion in the year 2013, the petitioner says that he happened to be at Thanjavur, for his personal work and at that time, he visited the said hospital constructed at Thanjavur, in the year 2013. According to him, it was at that time, he noticed that the construction of the building of the hospital is occupying the entire area of the lands and that there is no space more than two feet between two sides of the building. The petitioner further submitted that he sent representation in 2013, to various authorities to correct the Hospital administration, in the interest of patients. The petitioner further submitted that he sent representation in 2013, to various authorities to correct the Hospital administration, in the interest of patients. The petitioner further pleaded that from Hindu News Paper, dated 29.12.2014, he came to know serious shortcomings and violations committed by the 'Meenachi Hospital' at Thanjavur in the construction of Hospital building and that he enquired and found that there are so many violations and evasions, posing serious threat to the life of the patients and public. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the Hospital has obtained approval from the authorities in an illegal manner. It was further alleged by the petitioner that the Hospital did not obtain permission from 'Pollution Control Board' and that they failed to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the Air Force Base, which is just 2.4 kms., away from the Hospital. The petitioner also admitted that he came to know about the pendency of earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015, before this Court and that he filed a petition to implead himself as party in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015 wanted to withdraw the Writ Petition and it was thereafter, the petitioner sought to implead himself, as a party to the Writ Petition. However, a Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 7553 of 2015, to withdraw the Writ Petition and gave liberty to the petitioner to come up with a fresh Writ Petition. It was thereafter, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit interalia pointing out the sequence of events, which are necessary for deciding the maintainability of the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. On 28.04.2015, one K. Senthil Kumar, describing himself as a practicing Advocate filed a Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation in W.P. (MD) No.7553 of 2015 before this Court, for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing all the respondents to take action against the 7th respondent, on the basis of his representation, dated 17.04.2015 and to impose penal action against the 7th respondent, who constructed a high-rise building, which threatens the safety of the people of our Nation. It is pertinent to mention that the 7th respondent was not made a party in W.P. (MD) No.7553 of 2015. 5. It is pertinent to mention that the 7th respondent was not made a party in W.P. (MD) No.7553 of 2015. 5. On 11.06.2015, the petitioner filed M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2015 to implead the 7th respondent in the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No.7553 of 2015. On 18.06.2015, another person, by name L. Leo Basil, filed M.P (MD) No.2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015 to implead him as 8th respondent in the above Writ Petition. On 06.07.2015, the said Leo Basil in whose name the affidavit in M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2015 in W.P. (MD) No. 7553 of 2015 was filed, wrote a letter to the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, stating that the signature found in the affidavit filed in his name is not his signature and that he has not engaged any Advocate by name F. Deepak. In the same affidavit Mr. L. Leo Basil further alleged that the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 7553 of 2015, Mr. Senthil Kumar his Advocate, Mr. V. Kesavaraj and Advocate Mr. F. Deepak are conspired and forged his signature both in the affidavit and vakalat in M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2015. After inspection of the original affidavit and vakalat, the said Leo basil filed a petition before the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, stating that his signatures found in affidavit and vakalat filed in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2015 as well as W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015 were not his signatures; that he did not engage any Lawyer by name, F. Deepak for filing any such petition ; that he did not instruct anybody to file any such petition and that he did not know F. Deepak, the advocate and that the three Advocates have falsely filed the said affidavit in his name. 6. On 09.07.2015, this Court passed orders in M.P (MD) No.2 of 2015 in W.P. (MD) No. 7553 of 2015, directing the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras to enquire into the contents of the letters dated 06.07.2015 filed by the said S. Leo Basil and to file a report. On 26.11.2015, Mr. Leo Basil, who complained that his signature was forged in the vakalat filed an affidavit before this Court. On 26.11.2015, Mr. Leo Basil, who complained that his signature was forged in the vakalat filed an affidavit before this Court. He appeared in person before a Division Bench of this Court, requested the Court to permit him to withdraw the complaint given by him before the Registrar (Judicial) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. On 01.12.2013, Mr. F. Deepak Advocate on record for Mr. L. Leo Basil filed an affidavit in W.P. (MD) No.7553 of 2015 stating that a person claiming to be L. Leo Basil approached him for filing an affidavit to implead himself in W.P. (MD) No.7553 of 2015; that he did not verify the actual identity of the person, wo approached him; that afterwards he realise Mr. L. Leo Basil did not actually come to him and that he was mislead. Mr. F. Deepak also prayed for dropping of proceedings initiated through the Registrar (Vigilance), Madras High Court. Further proceedings was therefore, dropped by the Division Bench of this Court after recording the explanation offered by Mr. Deepak, counsel in the affidavit. 7. On 01.12.2015, this Court passed orders dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 7553 of 2015 filed by Mr. K. Senthil Kumar, after holding that the writ petitioner had failed to implead the 7th respondent herein, against whom several allegations were made. Though the petitioner herein also filed a petition to implead himself as a party, the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition. 8. The present Writ Petition has been filed on 08.01.2016 for the relief prayed for. Though the petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he is residing at Door No.11/85 , First Cross Street, Viswanathapuram, Madurai - 625 015, the counsel for the petitioner has admitted before this Court that the petitioner was not residing in the said address, when he filed the Writ Petition. Though the petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he is residing at Door No.11/85 , First Cross Street, Viswanathapuram, Madurai - 625 015, the counsel for the petitioner has admitted before this Court that the petitioner was not residing in the said address, when he filed the Writ Petition. This information came from the counsel for the petitioner only, when the counsel for the 7th respondent produced before this Court a complaint given by the petitioner's erstwhile landlord against the petitioner stating that the petitioner had vacated the residential house viz., Door No. 11/85, First Cross Street, Viswanathapuram, Madurai - 625 015 long back in November, 2015 and that he is trying to misuse the address, out fear of getting into some kind of problem in future. 9. From the reading of the affidavit filed by Mr. K. Senthil Kumar in W.P.(MD)No.7553 of 2015, the affidavit of L. Leo Basil filed in support of M.P. (Md) No. 2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD) No. 7553 of 2015 and the affidavit of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition one would get an impression that all the persons have a common cause to fight against the 7th respondent in succession without pointing out the specific violation or deviation, with reference to the provisions of any statute. The petitioner, who is a permanent resident of Madurai comes to Court, for taking action against the Hospital administration for construction of this Hospital in Tanjure, for violation of building rules and for want of NOC from Air Force Authority. Petitioner is stated to be a car mechanic. In the above circumstances, this Court feels that it is appropriate to consider the locus standi of the petitioner, as focussed by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent. 10. It is also important to note that the said K. Senthil Kumar, who filed the first Writ Petition withdrew the Writ Petition, when it was pointed out that the Writ Petition without impleading the 7th respondent, is not maintainable. He did not seek permission to implead the 7th respondent and prosecute the matter further, as by then the present Writ Petition came into existence. From the nature of the averments and the facts noted above, it is evident that all the three have some nexus, while approaching the Court and raising their voice against the establishment of a Hospital. He did not seek permission to implead the 7th respondent and prosecute the matter further, as by then the present Writ Petition came into existence. From the nature of the averments and the facts noted above, it is evident that all the three have some nexus, while approaching the Court and raising their voice against the establishment of a Hospital. The learned Senior Counsel for the 7th respondent has also brought to the notice of this Court that there were several proceedings in which some of the relatives of 7th respondent raised several issues in civil and criminal proceedings and submitted that the petitioner has been set up by other persons, who have vested interests in troubling the family of the Managing Director of 7th respondent. The 7th respondent in his counter affidavit has categorically stated that the petitioner is only a car mechanic and the materials submitted by him before this Court are not expected to be within his reach. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel strenuously argued that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary reported in ( AIR 1993 SC 892 ), wherein in paragraph Nos. 60, 106 and 117, it has been held as follows:- "60. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise 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. 106. K.N. Singh, J. speaking for the Bench in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. has ex-pressed his opinion in the following words: "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 proceedings 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 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." 116. After deeply and carefully considering the submissions of all the parties, we see much force in the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General, Mr. A.D. Giri and Mr. Jethamalani, senior counsel. A perusal of the petitions filed by H.S. Chowdhary before the Special Judge and the High Court dearly unfolds that Mr. Chowdhary appears to be very much concerned with the personal and private interest of the accused in the criminal case and there is absolutely no involvement of public interest. Can it be said that this litigation is in the nature of PIL to vindicate and effectuate the public interest? The emphatic answer would be 'Not even a single ray of the characteristic of public interest litigation is visibly see'. 11. He also relied upon another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others reported in ( 2010 (3) SCC 402 ), wherein in paragraph 181, it has been held as follows:- 197. 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. 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 P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The court 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 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." 12. In a resent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan reported in ( 2014 (5) SCC 530 ), wherein it has been held that " In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases wherein, it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. 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. 13. Again in the Judgment in Sanjay Musale v. State of M.P. and Others reported in ( 1998 (6) SCC 616 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the Courts cannot allow their forum to be misused in the garb of "public interest". 14. In the Judgment in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others reported in ( 1992 (4) SCC 305 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has expressed a strong view about the necessity to reject the vexatious petitions under the colour of Public Interest Litigation, at the threshold. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in para 110, which reads as follows:- "110. 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 are second to none in fostering and developing the newly invented concept of PIL and extending our long arm 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 criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from the 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, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. 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 busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either for themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffling 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 Courts and as result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never moves which piquant situation creates a frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system." 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, reported in ( AIR 1997 SC 272 ), has held that a person, who come forward with Public Interest Litigation must exercise restrain in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. It has been further held that "Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issued 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 their 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". 16. Applying the principles reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner does not appear to have approached this Court to espouse the cause of public. It will be against the interest of public to entertain the Writ Petition filed by persons like petitioner, who has come before this Court either for personal gain or private profit either for himself or as proxy to others. Thus, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Petitioner dismissed.