JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, C.J. This petition, in the nature of public interest litigation, has been filed by an advocate of Nimapara having more than 30 years of practice questioning the bonafide of demolition of the existing building of Panchayat Samiti of the block in question which has not been declared unsafe and construction of a new building in hot haste, involving huge financial investments, without following the procedure. It is also stated in the prayer that huge financial investment is being proposed to be done by way of tampering official records. Thereby to safeguard the interest of the public at large, this petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking interference of this Court. 2. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the speed at which sanction has been granted for construction of new building itself goes to show that there is some financial bungling. He placed reliance on the order sheet of the record to show that in December, 2014, a proposal was made by Block Development Officer for construction of Panchayat Samiti building and within two months, on 18.02.2015, financial sanction and approval has been given by the competent authority. He thus contends that the action of the opposite parties amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable action, aimed at swallowing unutilized Government money in the guise of colourable exercise of powers. 3. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate refuted such allegations with vehemence referring to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that merely because sanction and approval for construction of a new building has been done expeditiously, it cannot be said that there is some financial bungling. Although in the prayer it has been stated that there is tampering of official record, in the body of the petition, there is nothing stated in that regard. It is not disputed that the Collector is the final authority to approve the scheme and in the order sheet dated 18.02.2015 itself, it has been mentioned that the plan and estimate of the project for Rs.40,00,000/- has been technically sanctioned by the Addl. P.D. (Technical), DRDA, Puri and administratively approved by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Office, DRDA, Puri. As such, there is no procedural lacuna in the sanction and approval of the building. 5. P.D. (Technical), DRDA, Puri and administratively approved by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Office, DRDA, Puri. As such, there is no procedural lacuna in the sanction and approval of the building. 5. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Panchayat Samiti building has been damaged in the cyclone, “Phailin” 2013, because of which construction of new building was necessitated. Relevant paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below: “6.That before giving reply to the averments of each paragraph, it is necessary to furnish the brief back ground of the case as under for just and effective adjudication of lis. (i) During PHAILIN, 2013, some portion/part of Block Office building, Nimapara was damaged. Government in P.R. Department, Odisha has sanctioned vide order No.20925 dated 15.12.2014 for an amount of Rs.40 lakhs towards construction of non-residential office building, Nimapara. Thereafter Panchayat Samiti meeting was held on 9.1.2015 and in the said meeting it was unanimously passed a resolution for construction of non-residential office building by demolishing some portion of the old building made of asbestos roof and badly damaged in the cyclone i.e., PHAILIN, 2013. It is relevant to mention here that plan and estimate of Rs.40 lakhs for construction of new building was technically sanctioned by the Addl. Project Director, DRDA, Puri on 16.01.2015. Subsequently it was administratively approved by the Collector, Puri on 18.02.2015. Construction of building work was started departmentally and it was entrusted to one Junior Engineer as per the resolution of Panchayat Samiti meeting dated 09.01.2015. (ii)Construction work is going on very smoothly and it will be completed very recently. After demolition of some portion of old building, all the materials collected, have been duly accounted for auction sale. After auction, Rs.81,150/- has been collected from the highest bidder and has deposited in the Government account. Construction work is being taken up as per the guidelines of Government in a transparent manner. In such viewof the matter, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner does not merit consideration of the Hon’ble Court.” Although copy of the counter affidavit was served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 8.12.2015, yet no rejoinder affidavit has been filed to controvert the said averments made in the counter affidavit. 6. In such viewof the matter, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner does not merit consideration of the Hon’ble Court.” Although copy of the counter affidavit was served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 8.12.2015, yet no rejoinder affidavit has been filed to controvert the said averments made in the counter affidavit. 6. From the aforesaid facts of the case and the averments made in the counter affidavit, we are satisfied that construction of the building was necessary, for which due sanction and approval was given by the appropriate authority, and that there is no case for interference by this Court. 7. In Malik Bros v. Narendra Dadhich, (1999) 6 SCC 552 , the apex Court held as follows:- “… a public interest litigation is usually entertained by a Court for the purpose of redressing public injury enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertaining such application is the vindication of the rule of law, effect access to justice to the economically weaker class and meaningful realization of the fundamental rights. The direction and commands issued by the courts of law in a public interest are for the betterment of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual. But if the Court finds that in the garb of a public interest litigation actually an individual’s interest is sought to be carried out or protected, it would be the bounden-duty of the Court not to entertain such petitions as otherwise a very purpose of innovation of public interest litigation will be frustrated. It is in fact a litigation in which a person is not aggrieved personally but brings an action on behalf of the downtrodden mass for the redressal of their grievance.” 8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in our considered opinion, on Public Interest Litigation (PIL), redressal of public injury, enforcement of public duty, protection of social rights and vindication of public interest must be the parameters for entertaining a PIL. The Court has a bounden duty to see whether any legal injury is caused to a person or a cluster of persons or an indeterminate class of persons by way of infringement of any Constitutional or other legal rights while delving into a PIL. The Court has a bounden duty to see whether any legal injury is caused to a person or a cluster of persons or an indeterminate class of persons by way of infringement of any Constitutional or other legal rights while delving into a PIL. The existence of any public interest as well as bona fide are the other vital areas to come under the Court‘s scrutiny. In absence of any legal injury or public interest or bona fide, a PIL is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is to be borne in mind that ultimately it is the rule of law that is to be vindicated. As such, there is a need for restrain on the part of the Public Interest Litigants when they move courts. The Courts should also be cautious and selective in accepting PIL as well. 9. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation or the latest trend paisa income litigation. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones nose into for a probe. 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 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. 10. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, 2003 (9) Scale 741 , the Apex Court held as follows: “Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and thejudiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil and 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 armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique consideration. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserves to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” Laying down certain conditions on which the Court has to satisfy itself it was observed: “The Court has to be satisfied about- (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prime facie correctness or nature of theinformation given by him; (c) the information being not vague andindefinite; The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interest; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive action. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal.” The Apex Court, on the point of exercising restraint, held that that it has to be very careful that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to be executive and legislature. The Court hardening its stand said:- “The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy-bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono public, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.” 11. The Court hardening its stand said:- “The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy-bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono public, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.” 11. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 28 , the Apex Court, relying upon the judgments of S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp. SCC 87, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892 , after noticing that lakhs of rupees had been spent by the petitioner to prosecute the case, held as under: “it has been repeatedly held by the Court that none has a right to approach the Court as a public interest litigant and that Court must be careful to see that the member of the public who approaches the Court in public interest, is acting bona fide and not for any personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. …………….. while the Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow their process to be abused by a mere busybody, or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer of officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.” 12. Applying the test as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments to the present context, it appears that the forum of public interest litigation is being misused and become hindrance for carrying out developmental activities in the villages, towns and cities. There is a procedure prescribed for carrying out the developmental activities, which in this case is construction new Panchayat Samiti building. Without bringing on record any particular lapses on the part of the authorities in raising the building, even though the appropriate authorities have accorded due sanction as well as approval to such construction, filing of the writ petition, without there being any valid grounds, can be said to be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Without bringing on record any particular lapses on the part of the authorities in raising the building, even though the appropriate authorities have accorded due sanction as well as approval to such construction, filing of the writ petition, without there being any valid grounds, can be said to be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. We deprecate filing of such kind of petition. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an advocate, we dismiss the petition, without imposing any cost. The petition is accordingly dismissed.