JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard the petitioner in person who has filed this PIL. Also heard the learned senior counsel Mr. S.N. Sarma representing the Oil India Ltd. (respondent No.5). The State of Assam is represented by Mr. C. Choudhury, the learned Advocate General. Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, the Central Govt. lawyer appears for the 1st respondent. 2.1. The concern of the petitioner is the decision taken by the Central Government to auction off 12 oil fields in Assam. According to her, if the un-exploited oil fields are auctioned, there will be adverse consequences for the State and its people. The petitioner contends that the proposed action is intended to serve vested private interest and the public sector giants like ONGC and Oil India Ltd. should be made answerable to the people of Assam, for their failure to produce crude oil from the concerned oil fields, in the last few decades. 2.2. The PIL avers that the decision to auction off the Assam’s oil fields is taken due to pressure of those, who had invested money during the last general election. According to the petitioner, if private parties are entrusted to explore crude-oil from those fallow oil fields, the door will eventually open for them to extract crude oil from more productive oil fields. In the event of appointment of foreign company for oil exploration, the petitioner referring to the vulnerability of the border State, expresses apprehension about destabilization of India, by foreign powers. 2.3. As the petitioner-in-person Ms. M. Dev, who is a practicing lawyer of this Court, contends that she is espousing the interest of the people of Assam and accordingly direction is sought upon the Central and the State Government to produce all records preceding the decision, to auction off the 12 oil fields of Assam. 3. When the locus standi of the petitioner is questioned, she cites S.P. Gupta vs. President of India, reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 ; Chaitanya Kumar vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1986 SC 825 and Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs. Union of India, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 244 , to contend that as a public spirited individual, the petitioner is entitled to articulate the concern of the people of Assam on the proposed action. She submits that the process will privatise the extraction of crude oil from the concerned oil fields and this will not be in public interest. 4.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Sarma, the learned senior counsel representing the Oil India Ltd. submits that this PIL is misconceived, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate whether any illegality, wrong or injury is caused or the proposed auction of the oil fields will infringe any legal or Constitutional rights. He projects that these 12 oil fields could not be exploited during last 30/40 years for techno-commercial reasons and that is why, international competitive bid is proposed, to attempt extraction from the oil fields with latest technology. 4.2. The lawyer for the Oil India Ltd. contends that this is not a first time initiative of the Government and international bidding process for the oil fields in North-east and elsewhere in India were started in the 1990s. According to the data available with Mr. Sarma, for several oil fields in Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, private companies have been deployed for exploration of crude oil and gas. According to the terms of extraction, whatever hydro carbon resource is extracted by the private companies, those will be the assets of the Government and there is no question of any vested interest in the proposed competitive bidding process. The experience of exploration of hydro carbon resources in the Panna, Mukta and Tapti Fields (in Bombay off shore) is cited by Mr. Sarma where operation is by international groups with ONGC as a joint collaborator. The crude oil generated from Bombay off shore is handed over to the ONGC and the foreign companies who have invested their money and technical expertise, receive their earning on the extracted crude oil, as per agreement. 5.1. Mr. C. Choudhury, the learned Advocate General, Assam questions the bona-fide of the PIL and he submits that nothing is shown by the petitioner as to how she is aggrieved by the policy decision of the Government. He submits that if the fallow oil fields can be made productive, it will benefit the State and there is no basis for nurturing any apprehension on detrimental impact to Assam and its people, through the impugned action. 5.2. He submits that if the fallow oil fields can be made productive, it will benefit the State and there is no basis for nurturing any apprehension on detrimental impact to Assam and its people, through the impugned action. 5.2. The Advocate General refers to the two representations enclosed to the petitioner’s additional affidavit to contend that the auctioning of the oil fields is opposed on unfounded apprehension that it will harm the interest of the oil sector employees and local sentiment. In the 2nd enclosed representation dated 4.7.2016, the employees have demanded for stopping the contrctualisation of service, against permanent vacancies of the Oil India Ltd. and from this Mr. Choudhury projects that the PIL is filed for extraneous reasons. 6. Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, as the Central Govt. counsel has no specific instruction in the matter but he submits that the new exploration licensing policy was adopted to ensure participation of groups with latest technology and financial strength and this can only be secured through international competitive bidding process. 7. The principle of locus standi is expertly articulated in S.P. Gupta (Supra), where the entertainment of PIL is supported in situation where, legal wrong or legal injury is caused by violation of any legal or constitutional rights or contravention of any constitutional or legal principles. When the victim of the legal wrong is a person or determinate class of person who, by reason of certain disability or disadvantage, is unable to approach Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for direction under Article 226 or Article 32, to seek judicial redress. In Chaitanya Kumar (Supra), the Supreme Court opined that when arbitrariness and perversity are brought out clearly, the Court should not shirk its duty and should interfere to prevent public mischief. 8. The petitioner-in-person is not a signatory of the representations annexed in her PIL but she contends on the authority of Lakshmi Kant Pandey (Supra) that the Court should intervene in this case. 9. The authority of the petitioner to shoulder a PIL has to be tested on the bona-fide of her cause and whether any legal wrong or legal injury is suffered by those whom the petitioner wishes to protect. But the petitioner neither in her averments in the PIL or in her submission, could demonstrate infringement of legal or constitutional rights any person or group. But the petitioner neither in her averments in the PIL or in her submission, could demonstrate infringement of legal or constitutional rights any person or group. As can be seen from the averments in paragraph Nos.17—20, only bald and omnibus statement of vested interest and pressure groups are alleged. The apprehension on vulnerability and instability in the border State, through operation of the oil fields by foreign companies, appears to be fertile imagination of an over anxious person without any supporting material. We can also take legal notice of the fact that many foreign companies are involved in exploration of hydro carbon resources in the North Eastern states and elsewhere in the country, for last several years, without any cause for concern. 10. We can’t overlook that the letter from the practicing lawyer entertained by the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (Supra) related to the malpractice and trafficking of children and the Advocate’s letter referred to empirical investigation which disclosed how the children intended for adoption became victims, for want of proper care from the foster parents. 11. The Supreme Court in Chaitanya Kumar (Supra) had observed that those professing to be public spirited citizens shouldn’t be encouraged to indulge in wild and reckless allegations and intervention of the Court would not be justified, except in situation where the litigation is intended to avoid public mischief and advances public interest. In cases where the State or public authority act in violation of statutory obligation or constitutional duty and this result in injury to public interest, a PIL at the instance of a public spirited citizen can certainly be entertainable and locus may not be a factor for a just public cause. In other words, genuine and bona-fide PIL should be encouraged by the Court, whereas PIL for roving enquiry without support of empirical data should be discouraged. 12. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 , the Supreme Court issued few significant directions in the realm of entertainment of PIL which reads as under: “……………………………………………………….. 181. ……………………………………………………….. (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) ……………………………………………………….. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. 181. ……………………………………………………….. (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) ……………………………………………………….. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts 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 Courts 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. ………………………………………………………..” 13. This PIL is directed against a policy decision of the Union Government and in the face of the bald and omnibus allegation, without support of any empirical data, the intervention of the Court may not be warranted, particularly when the petitioner has failed to show how the policy decision is arbitrary or whether it was based on irrelevant consideration or that it is against statutory or constitutional provisions. 14. As was declared in Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited vs. K.P. Sharma, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 804 , the petitioner in a PIL can’t be permitted to function as an extraordinary or extra-judicial ombudsman, questioning the exercise undertaken by experts in the field. Moreover the Court must also adopt a conservative approach when judicial review is sought, in respect of decision involving economic policy of the State. 15. In the case before us, the petitioner has failed to indicate infringement of any constitutional or statutory rights. She has not demonstrated how the decision serves vested interest, particularly when the concerned oil fields remained fallow for multiple decades and the extraction work is to be entrusted through a competitive bidding process. 15. In the case before us, the petitioner has failed to indicate infringement of any constitutional or statutory rights. She has not demonstrated how the decision serves vested interest, particularly when the concerned oil fields remained fallow for multiple decades and the extraction work is to be entrusted through a competitive bidding process. As earlier noticed, many international companies are already involved in exploration of hydro carbon resources in the North East India and nothing adverse is noticed in their activities. Therefore the PIL appears to be a speculative petition where no foundation is seen for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner. Moreover negative impact on the State is unlikely if the concerned oil fields which are lying fallow since many decades can be made productive through ingestion of high end technology. When we consider that the extracted crude oil continues to be the asset of the State, the exploration by any entity (international or domestic), selected through transparent competitive bidding process, can’t be said to be an arbitrary option. 16. The aforesaid discussions demonstrate that this PIL is misconceived and is filed without a just cause. Consequently we do not wish to entertain the same. The case is dismissed.