JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. Following prayers have been made in this Public Interest Litigation:- "a. For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent No.10 to submit the status report of the investigation of the criminal case registered against the respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 12, who were involved in brutally assaulting and kidnapping of one of the member of press namely Manoranjan Singh, who was kept in solitary confinement in the premises of the Executive Engineer and he was beaten up by a gang of contractors, namely Sanjay Pandey (Cong. Leader of youth wing), Ravi Shankar Singh, Rinku Tiwary, Munna Gupta, Ajit Gupta, Shyamal Chakraborty and brother of S.D.M. Amit Kumar & Amit Kumar himself etc. for the reasons that, the press photographer went to the office of the respondent No. 7 just to collect the news and his camera was snatched by the gang of Mr. Singh, as the pressman has taken away some photographs which will expose the ensuing corruption going on in the office of the respondent No. 7, and the contractors and officers were taking drink together. b. For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent No. 9, to register F.I.R. against, Engineers namely Pradeep Kumar Singh, Ras Bihari Singh, etc. for their involvement in corrupt acts, which has caused loss of public money on the names of repair of VVIP quarters, its maintenance in connivance with contractors, who are either close of one-s of politicians, or relative of the officers, posted in Ranchi, on key positions as a result of that if any one raises finger, then either he will be beaten up or, killed through these criminal/contractors, such as Niranjan Kumar Singh, Binod Yadav, Shyamal Chakraborty, Munna Gupta, Sanjay Pandey, Lal Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Ravi Shankar Singh, Dharmender Singh, Ajit Gupta, Chandrakant Kumar, Sambhu Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh & Manoj Pandey etc. who protect the misdeeds of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and in turn they provide these two officers, security from politicians, press & bureaucrats etc., if some one takes their illegal acts to a logical end, and due to such criminal, politician, contractor & engineer nexus, respondent No.7 is continuing on posts for last five years (during the President Rule period, when he was brought to Ranchi, by Sanjay Pandey congress President) and has amassed wealth worth not less than hundreds of crores, through contractors adopting all wrong. c. For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent No. 10 to provide protection to the petitioner as he was also brought to the notice of the authority threat to life looming due to involvement of hard core criminal in the entire engineer contractor loot carried out under the headmanship of respondent Nos. 7 & 8 and the department is looked into by the head of State of Jharkhand. d. For the issuance of an appropriate writ or an order or direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for doing equitable and conscionable justice to this petitioner." 2. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that all canons of allegations are against Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 12. Allegations levelled by this petitioner are to the effect that one Shri. Manoranjan Singh was assaulted and kidnapped. It further appears that this petitioner has grievance about methodology and procedure followed by the departments of the Government in awarding contracts. It has been prayed that proper action may be taken against all respondent officers. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that this is not a public interest litigation, but, a blackmailing type of litigation. If aforesaid Manoranjan Singh is brutally assaulted and kidnapped, he should have been made a petitioner in this writ petition and looking to the prayer made at 1.(a) (quoted above) there are allegations against one Shri. Sanjay Pandey also, but, surprisingly, this Sanjay Pandey has also not been joined as a respondent in this writ petition. Thus, curiously, petitioner appears to be more concerned about the well-being of Mr. Manoranjan Singh than Mr. Manoranjan Singh himself. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed and it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that First Information Report has already been filed on 16th June, 2015, being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 227 of 2015 in Lower Bazar Police Station, Ranchi, for assault upon Mr. Manoranjan Singh which has also been investigated into and the charge-sheet has also been filed against one accused and at present further investigation is going on. Manoranjan Singh which has also been investigated into and the charge-sheet has also been filed against one accused and at present further investigation is going on. So far as methodology with respect to grant of contract is concerned, it is also stated in the counter-affidavit in detail that the Registered contractors are given contract through ' Notice Inviting Tender' ? and the entire process is being conducted as per rules in compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that if this petitioner wants to ventilate any grievance with respect to the process regarding grant of contract work, a writ petition can always be preferred against the responsible officials and the particular Contractor, but, a Public Interest Litigation can never be filed as it is not the correct legal remedy in such cases. These general allegations, against officers and private persons who are not even joined as parties, are levelled with a motive, which has been mentioned in paragraph No. 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State. As per aforesaid paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner has no means of livelihood and indulges in corrupt practices of blackmailing the contractors and concerned Government officers. Moreover, this petitioner has been illegally occupying the Government building situated at Press Colony in the city of Ranchi, after breaking the locks and when he was asked to vacate the said building, he started making baseless allegations against the Government Officers and Government contractors and therefore, this public interest litigation may not be entertained by this court. 4. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, It appears that this is not a public interest litigation at all, but, a blackmailing type of litigation. It further appears from the facts of the case, especially looking to the prayer made in paragraph No. 1(a), that there are certain allegations against one Shri. Sanjay Pandey, who has never been joined as a party respondent. The allegations against said Sanjay Pandey is that he has beaten up one Shri. Manoranjan Singh, but, surprisingly, neither Mr. Manoranjan Singh has been joined as a party petitioner nor Mr. Sanjay Singh as the party respondent. The allegations against said Sanjay Pandey is that he has beaten up one Shri. Manoranjan Singh, but, surprisingly, neither Mr. Manoranjan Singh has been joined as a party petitioner nor Mr. Sanjay Singh as the party respondent. Thus, neither the person upon whom the assault has taken place nor the person who has committed the assault has been joined as parties to this writ petition. Moreover, it further appears from the facts of the case that this petitioner appears to be more concerned about the well being of Mr. Manoranjan Singh than Mr. Singh himself. 5. It further appears from the facts of the case that already First Information Report has been lodged on 16th June, 2015, being Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 227 of 2015 in Lower Bazar Police Station, Ranchi. A charge-sheet has been filed against an accused and at present further investigation is going on. 6. So far as allegations levelled against Government officers and the contractors are concerned, as stated in the Paragraph 1(a) to be read with other paragraphs of the writ petition, it appears that there are certain Registered Contractors, who are given contract through Notice Inviting Tender and the entire process is being conducted as per rules as open tender process in compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as stated in the counter-affidavit. 7. In the memo of the writ petition, there is reference to the work done in the premises of High Court and other institutions which are under control of the High Court. In this context, it ought to be kept in mind that the High Court is neither awarding any contract to anyone nor it is engaging any contractor or maintaining and repairing any building of its own. So far as construction and repairing work of the buildings of the High Court and that of other institutions within its control are concerned, the Government is responsible for issuing tenders and awarding contracts. Nonetheless, if this petitioner has any grievance that somebody has been given a contract wrongfully, there is always a remedy of filing a writ petition. "Ibi jus ubi remedium" (Where there is wrong, there is remedy). Nonetheless, if this petitioner has any grievance that somebody has been given a contract wrongfully, there is always a remedy of filing a writ petition. "Ibi jus ubi remedium" (Where there is wrong, there is remedy). If the petitioner has any grievance to the effect that any work contract has wrongly been given to any contractor, the petitioner always has the remedy of filing a writ petition by joining the authorities and persons concerned as party respondents. In this so called public interest litigation, there is allegations against private persons and the veracity of these allegations cannot be checked in this public interest litigation, more particularly, with respect to the grant of contract by the Government. 8. It further appears from Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents that this petitioner is illegally occupying the premises of the Government and that it is only after the petitioner was asked to vacate the said premises, as alleged by the respondents, that this petitioner has started alleging against the government officials. Looking to the rejoinder filed by this petitioner, especially at paragraph 11 thereto, no satisfactory answer has been given by the petitioner as to how and why this petitioner is occupying the building or dwelling unit at Press Colony situated in Ranchi and therefore, it would not be wrong to say that this petitioner is not occupying the Government residential quarter/Building legally. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, it appears that this is not a public interest litigation, but, a litigation filed with an intention of blackmailing or a litigation filed for publicity. 10. This public interest litigation is, therefore, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to "Advocates-Association Welfare and Development Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi" within a period of six weeks from today. I.A. No. 6178 of 2016 11. In view of dismissal of this Public Interest Litigation, this Interlocutory Application also stands dismissed.