ORDER Jaiswal, J. -- 1. The petitioner has filed the instant public interest litigation, with the relief to stay the process of issuance of e-challans with the help of Close Circuit Television Footage by Road Transport Officer and e-challans which have already been issued be cancelled and the amount recovered on the basis of e-challans shall be returned to all concerned. He has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing all the concerned authorities to keep CCTV recording in custody till the end of process. 2. The petitioner has also impleaded the Chief Minister, Home Minister of the State, Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh; Director General of Police, Bhopal; Inspector General of Police, Indore Division, Indore; Deputy Inspector General of Police, Indore Division, Indore; Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore; Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Indore; Deputy Superintendent of Police by name. In page No.3 of the writ petition, he has also mentioned the name of Hon’ble the President of India. In page No.3 of the writ petition, he has also mentioned the name of Hon’ble the President of India. Last paragraph of writ petition at page 6 and paragraph No.3 at page No.4 are relevant, which read, as under: ^^ih vkbZ ,y ;kfpdk@vkonsu nkf[ky djus ds eq[; vk/kkj%& 1- fu;e fo:} ,oa 'kklu ds }kjk izfdz;k 'kq: fd, fcuk ,oa bZ&pkyku dh vuqefr@vf/klwpuk@ uksfVfQds'ku tkjh fd, fcuk bZ&uksfVl] QksVks;qDr uksfVl Hkst dj pkyku dh jkf'k MkWd O;; o vU; O;; ;krk;kr iqfyl foHkkx bankSj ds }kjk olwyus ds laca/k esa ;kfpdkdrkZ ds }kjk ek- Jh f'kojktflag th pkSgku eq[;ea=h] ek- Jh ckcwyky th xkSj x`gea=h] Jh ,UVksuh] fMlk eq[; lfpo e-iz- 'kklu Hkksiky] Jh izeq[k lfpo x`g ea=ky; ea=ky; e-iz- 'kklu] Hkksiky] Jh nqcs th laHkkxk;qDr bankSj] Jh larks"k dqekj flag MhvkbZth bankSj] Jh euh"k flag th fuxek;qDr lfgr ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k e; nLrkostksa ds mDr o fuEu fcanqvksa ds laca/k esa fnukad 2-2-2016 ,oa 15-2-2016 ,oa 23-2-2016 o vU; fnukad dks fyf[kr f'kdk;rsa ntZ djokbZ] fdUrq dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ] uk gh dSejksa ds ek/;e ls QksVks cukdj bZ&uksfVl Hkst dj pkyku o vU; O;; dh jkf'k olwyuk can fd;kA ,usDpj&2 ¼f'kdk;rksa dh izfr;k¡½ 2- pkSjkgksa] frjkgksa o vU; LFkkuksa ij LVkWi ykbZu] tszck ykbZu ¼>sczk ykbZu½ LihM cszdj vkfn cukus ds fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k tk jgk gS] dgh Hkh fdruh Hkh nwjh ij fu;eksa dk ikyu fd, fcuk fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds iw.kZ foijhr] euethZ ls pkSjkgksa] frjkgksa o vU; LFkkuksa ij LVkWi ykbZu] tsck ¼>sczk ykbZu½ cuk nsus vkfn dkj.k ;krk;kr vO;ofLFkr gks jgk gS vkSj turk ;krk;kr fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha dj ik jgh gSA 3- jkT; 'kklu us vHkh bZ&pkyu cuk;s tkus ds fy, bankSj esa izfdz;k gh izkjaHk ugha dh gSA ;g ek- ckcwyky th xkSj x`gea=h e-iz- 'kklu ds }kjk fo/kkulHkk esa iz'u dz-736 vrkjkafdr fnukad 9-12-2015 ds mrj esa fn, x, tokc ls izekf.kr gksrk gS vFkkZr~ ;g Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd bankSj ;krk;kr iqfyl ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fo/kkf;dk@pquh gqbZ ljdkj@dsfcusV@'kklu ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk Hkh mYya[ku fd;k tkdj muds {ks=kf/kdkj dk guu Hkh fd;k gSA ,usDpj&3 ¼fo/kkulHkk tokc dh izfrfyfi½A 4- VsDuksfll daiuh ds deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk lkaB&xkaB dj ;krk;kr iqfyl foHkkx ds vf/kdkjh@Fkkuk izHkkjh QthZ rjhds ls QksVks cukdj bZ&uksfVl] QksVks;qDr uksfVl Hkst dj turk ls tcju olwyh dj jgs gSA 5- pkSjkgksa ij yxs dSejsa ckj&ckj vkSj dbZ can gks tkrs gSA dSejksa dh ohfM;ks fjdkfMZx o vU; lk{; vkj Vh vkbZ ds rgr ek¡xu ij ugha fn, tkrs gS vkSj cgkuk cuk fn;k tkrk gS 30 fnu ds csd vi dkA 6- ftl vof/k esa pkSjkgs ij yxs dSejs can jgrs gS ml vof/k ds Hkh bZ&uksfVl] QksVks;qDr uksfVl Hksts tk jgs gSA** ^^3- QthZ rjhds ls QksVks cukdj bZ&uksfVl] QksVks;qDr uksfVl Hkstuk vkSj O;; lfgr jkf'k dh olwyh djuk( 4- in vkSj vkf/kdkfj;ksa dk nq:i;ksx djuk( 5- iqfyl vkSj vU; deZpkfj;ksa dk Mj fn[kkdj turk dks Mjkuk( 6- U;k;ikfydk dk nq:i;ksx djuk( 7- turk ls ljdkj dh Nfo [kjkc djuk( 8- LVkWi ykbZu] tsczk ¼>sczk½ ykbZu] LihM] czsdj vkfn cukus ds fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha djuk( 9- ;krk;kr esa lq/kkj ugh gksuk D;ksafd ftEesnkjksa ds }kjk fu;eksa dk ikyu ugh djus ls turk dh lgHkfxrk iz'kklu] ;krk;kr iqfyl dks ugha fey ikrh gS D;ksafd turk esa Hkkjh jks"k jgrk gS] turk fp<+h jgrh gSA fdlh Hkh ;kstuk ds ykxw gksus ij mlds lQy gksus vkSj fodkl ds fy, ;g cM+h gkfu gS( 10- ;krk;kr O;oLFkk Bhd djus] laHkkyus dh ctk, vf/kdrj le; turk ls pkyku cukdj tcju jkf'k dh olwyh esa iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa] deZpkfj;ksa dk yxk jgukA VkjxsV dh rjg jkf'k olwyh tkrh gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd tkucw> dj vkSj tcju pkyku cuk, tkrs gS o vU;A** 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Traffic Police have no power to issue e-notice on the basis of the recording of the CCTV camera, nor they have any power to issue e-challan on the basis of the footage of CCTV recording in violation of the Traffic Rules and prayed for the following relief: ^^ek¡x@jkgr & rRdky bZ&uksfVl] dSejksa ds ek/;e ls QksVks cukdj uksfVl Hkstdj pkyku dh jkf'k olwys tkus ij jksd yxkbZ tk,] vc rd Hksts x, leLr ,oa isafMx bZ&uksfVl vkSj QksVks;qDr uksfVlksa dks fujLr fd;k tk,] LVkWi ykbZu] tsczk ykbZu ¼>sczk ykbZu½ LihM czsdj cukus ds fu;eksa dk ikyu dj ok;k tks] fcuk izfdz;k iw.kZ fd, bZ&uksfVl] dSejksa ls QksVks cukdj ds pkyku dh olwyh xbZ jkf'k turk dks e; C;kt ds ykSVkbZ tkus] dSejksa dh ohfM;ksa fjdkfMZax dk fjdkMZ pkyku ds fujkdj.k rd j[kus ,oa vuq'kklukRed ,oa naMkRed dk;Zokgh djus dk vkns'k nsus dk fuosnu gSA** 4. The issuance of e-challan to the persons, who are violating the Traffic Rules, is going on all over the world. None of the persons aggrieved, who have deposited challan, are aggrieved by any action of the Traffic Police. The Traffic Police to provide smooth movement of traffic and to follow the Traffic Rules by four wheelers and two wheelers installed CCTV Cameras on public roads, so that if any person, violates the Traffic Rules, appropriate action be taken against them under the Traffic Rules. This practice and procedure is going on all over the world. 5. The petitioner is challenging the action of the Traffic Police, and therefore, he has wrongly impleaded them as a necessary party; that too, by their names. 6. It is not the case of the petitioner that by issuing e-challan, the respondents are violating any administrative guidelines/circulars not having statutory force and causing any legal injury to the writ petitioner. 7. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chingalal Yadav v. State of M.P., reported as 2010(3) JLJ 360 (FB)= 2010(2) MPLJ 443 , has held that the Courts interference with policy is erroneous or on the ground that a better fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy and not the wisdom of the policy is the subject matter of judicial review. Legality of the policy and not the wisdom of the policy is the subject matter of judicial review. The Courts in exercise of their powers of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the executives unless the policy can be faulted with arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness etc. 8. In the present writ petition by name impleaded Hon’ble Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, I.G. Police, D.I.G. Police, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore, Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Indore, Deputy Superintendent of Police whereas, there is no ground to assume that they acted ‘mala fide’ . It is well settled that the allegations regarding ‘mala fide’ cannot be vaguely made. It must be specific and clear and the persons against whom, it is alleged must be made party. The law casts a heavy burden on the person alleging ‘mala fide’ to prove the same on the basis of facts that are either admitted or satisfactorily established and/or logic inference deducible from the same. This is particularly so when the petitioner alleges malice in fact in which event it is obligatory for the person making any such allegation to furnish particulars that when number of ‘mala fides’ on the part of the decision maker vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provide a sound basis for the Court to conduct an enquiry into their veracity. 9. In the present case, on 31.12.2013, the Director General Police has taken a decision to install Intelligent, Traffic Management System CCTV capable of generating e-challan for city Indore for smooth running of traffic. After implementation of the aforesaid scheme, tender was invited and CCTV camera was installed for the period from January 2015 to January 2016. E-notices have been issued from 15 squares. Total 42310 notices have been issued from RLVD system cameras, which was installed in 14 squares and fine was imposed. None of the person to whom fines were imposed from time to time challenged the same or filed as such writ petition nor aggrieved by the aforesaid action. 10. It may not be out of place to refer to the report given by three member Committee head by Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 22.4.2014, to scrutinize and monitor the enforcement of statutory provisions including the Motor Vehicles Act for making the road safer. 10. It may not be out of place to refer to the report given by three member Committee head by Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 22.4.2014, to scrutinize and monitor the enforcement of statutory provisions including the Motor Vehicles Act for making the road safer. The said Committee has held in its report dated 19.8.2015 that unless strong and urgent measures are taken to deal with speeding, drunken driving, red-light jumping, violation of helmet laws and seat belt laws, use of mobile phones while driving and overloading, a number of accidents and fatalities will continue to remain high. The Committee asked the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to take stern action against violators of law under the provisions of section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, by passing an order disqualifying the offender from holding the driving licence for a specified period and also by sending to imprisonment wherever it is provided under the law. It also directed that the helmet laws be made applicable all over the country, both for main and pillion riders and suggested two wheeler owners to carry an extra helmet with them. When the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble apex Court itself has come out with many strong and stringent measures to deal with traffic offences, the directions given by the State Government and District Collector are in consonance with the provisions of law. 11. The apex Court also in the case of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and others, reported in (2014)6 SCC 36 , directed the Government of each State to effectively implement and enforce all the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of which, the States have the authority and obligation to so act under the Constitution. 12. It is well settled law that, there must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions [See : Kusum lata v. Union of India and others, reported as 2006(7) Scale 41 ]. 13. For these reasons, we are of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has devoid of any substance and he has without any material impleaded number of persons by their names for publicity purpose only and, therefore, we dismiss the writ petition with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Cost amount be deposited within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the respondents are free to take appropriate action for recovery of the cost amount.