ORDER : 1. The instant Public Interest Litigation has progressed to a considerable extent as would appear from the affidavits filed by the parties and also the orders passed from time to time thereupon. 2. One of the issue which has been raised on behalf of the Respondent State Authorities right from the outset do not seem to have seriously brought to the notice of the Court earlier or replied affirmatively by the PIL petitioner himself in any of the affidavits. This PIL with the prayer made herein concerning the implementation of the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996, more specifically related to issuance of license to the deed writers in the Sub Registry Office of Rajmahal in the District of Sahibganj was raised by the PIL petitioner through the instant writ petition with categorical averments at para 2 thereof that he is a social worker. That the instant writ petition has been filed in a representative capacity in the larger public interest and there is no direct or indirect personal interest of the petitioner. 3. Respondent no. 2, 4 and 5 in their first counter affidavit dated 18.7.2016 questioned the conduct of the writ petitioner in the light of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Ballwant Singh Chaufal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 and The Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. It was asserted therein that the writ petitioner's interest is involved as he is doing the work of deed writer. At para 19 they have further stated that writ petitioner has not made a clean declaration in para 2 of the writ petition and failed to disclose his interest in Sub-registry Office, Rajmahal. The writ petitioner is an advocate of Rajmahal and he is doing the work of deed writer. The certificate of the Bar Association, Sahibganj dated 16.7.2016 and a copy of the registered deed prepared by the petitioner were also enclosed as Annexure-J and K respectively. Petitioner however failed to respond to that even in his subsequent affidavit. It is further submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the Respondent State by referring to the Annexure-2 and 3 of the writ petition that in fact the brother of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Mandal S/o Uma Charan Mandal is himself a licensee deed writer under the Sub-registry Office, Rajmahal within Sahibganj. It is further submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the Respondent State by referring to the Annexure-2 and 3 of the writ petition that in fact the brother of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Mandal S/o Uma Charan Mandal is himself a licensee deed writer under the Sub-registry Office, Rajmahal within Sahibganj. Annexure-3 also under the signature of District Sub Registrar, Sahibganj at Rajamahal shows the name of the brother of petitioner at serial no. 10 as a licensee deed writer. These relevant facts related to the credentials of the petitioner and absence of direct or indirect interest in the cause were conspicuously suppressed on the part of the petitioner. The Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 also required the petitioner to give his full and complete details so as to reveal his/her interest, credentials, qualifications relevant for the Public Interest Litigation along with declaration that he/she has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter of PIL. 4. In the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), the Apex Court was in seisin of a PIL filed by a practicing lawyer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the realm of the issues raised therein had occasion to trace the origin and evolution of public interest litigation in India as emanated from realization of constitutional obligation by the Judiciary towards the vast sections of the society; poor and the marginalized sections of the society. This jurisdiction has been created and carved out by the judicial creativity and craftsmanship. The Court realized that because of extreme poverty, a large number of sections of society cannot approach the court. The fundamental rights have no meaning for them and in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of the marginalized sections of the society by judicial innovation; the Courts by judicial innovation and creativity started giving necessary directions and passing orders in the public interest. The rule of locus standi was diluted and the traditional meaning of “aggrieved person” was broadened to so that anyone can file PIL even if he is not personally affected. The Courts expanded the meaning of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The various facets of evolution of the Public Interest Litigation was discussed. The rule of locus standi was diluted and the traditional meaning of “aggrieved person” was broadened to so that anyone can file PIL even if he is not personally affected. The Courts expanded the meaning of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The various facets of evolution of the Public Interest Litigation was discussed. It was also observed that in that process the Supreme Court and the High Courts earned great respect and acquired great credibility in the eyes of public because of their innovative efforts to protect and preserve the fundamental rights of people belonging to the poor and marginalized sections of the society. The Apex Court also felt that over a period of time 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. Time had come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. Effective steps have to be taken to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts. The Apex Court categorized cases where frivolous public interest litigation petitions were to be dismissed with exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts. 5. In this background, the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) issued certain directions which are contained at para 181 of the report and are quoted hereunder:— “181. 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 with an object to streamline the filing of PIL: (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. (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 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”. 6. Pursuant thereto various High Courts have framed PIL Rules. The Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 have been also framed pursuant to the directions passed by the Apex Court. 7. In this light, we find that the petitioner has been seriously amiss in disclosing his correct credentials before this Court and prima facie also appears to have some direct or indirect interest in the cause raised. We may however not lose sight of the fact that the issue involving implementation of the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996 in the district of Sahibganj or elsewhere in the State are indeed matters of larger public interest, considering which, orders have been passed from time to time by this Court in the present PIL itself. We may however not lose sight of the fact that the issue involving implementation of the Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996 in the district of Sahibganj or elsewhere in the State are indeed matters of larger public interest, considering which, orders have been passed from time to time by this Court in the present PIL itself. In this background, we consider it appropriate to take up this case as suo motu public interest litigation i.e. “The Court on its own motion” after deleting the name of the petitioner from the instant writ petition. 8. We therefore consider it appropriate to appoint an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in the matter. We appoint learned Counsel Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the instant matter. Let a copy of the entire pleadings be served upon learned Amicus Curiae by the Registry within 1 week. Let the name of Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta be reflected in the cause list as learned Amicus Curiae, henceforth. We would also like the Respondent State, in the meantime to seek instruction on the contention raised in I.A. 7921 of 2017. Registry is required to make necessary corrections in the cause title and also in the cause list as directed above. 9. In the background circumstances in which we have been required to pass this order and for the reasons discussed herein above, we issue a stern warning to the petitioner not to indulge in any such ventures by suppressing correct facts about his credentials from the Court. The Registry would be careful in examining any PIL filed on behalf of the present petitioner in future as well. 10. Let the case appear after Diwali Vacation.