JUDGMENT : DILIP B. BHOSALE, CJ. 1. Heard Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent. 2. The petition filed in public interest is assailing the impugned proposal dated 12 December 2017 convened on the order of the third respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Muzaffar Nagar, selecting Swadikeen W/o Abrar and Sabnam W/o Rashid as fair price shop dealers of village Riawali Nagla, Reoli Nagala, Block Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Petitioner is the elected Gram Pradhan of the village. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, at the outset, would submit that petitioner is an interested person as he is objecting to the selection and allotment of the dealership of fair price shops to the two residents of the village, but has not arrayed them as party respondent, therefore, would urge that PIL at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable. 5. We have perused the impugned proposal with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It is noted therein that a meeting was convened by the Block Development Officer pursuant to a direction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The meeting was proposed to be held in the premises of the primary school, however, was shifted to Kanya Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Reoli due to space crunch in accommodating the villagers. 6. It is further noted that petitioner being Pradhan of the village did not attend the open meeting rather, he refused to participate in the meeting, consequently, candidature of all the applicants was considered in the meeting, thereby, selecting the eligible persons for allotment of fair price dealership. 7. On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner would not dispute the contents of the impugned proposal and failed to furnish any explanation as to why he being the Pradhan did not appear and participate in the open meeting or raise objections before the authorities with regard to the eligibility of the selected persons for the dealership or regarding any irregularity in convening the meeting. 8. 8. In the facts of the case at hand, we are of the opinion that the writ petition labelled as Public Interest Litigation in which business rival or person known to the fair price shop dealer has come up with a grievance that the fair price shop dealer should be punished or should be deprived of dealership on account of some irregularities in the allotment of fair price shop or distribution of food grains. In majority of such cases, the Court is left with a clear impression that the litigation was not really in public interest but for seeking some other advantage or for wreaking vengeance. 9. In the similar facts, Division Bench of this Court in Chhotey Lal Gandhi v. State of U.P. and others, (Civil Misc. Public Interest Litigation No. 9892 of 2013), decided on 22.02.2013, dismissed the writ petition placing reliance on an observation of the Supreme Court in Dr B. Singh v. Union of India and others, (2004) 3 SCC 363 , which is extracted: "When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendetta to bring to terms a person, not of one's liking, or gain publicity or a facade for blackmail, the said petition has to be thrown out..............There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before court 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." 10. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to entertain the writ petition, accordingly petition is dismissed.