ORDER : 1. The petitioners have filed this Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) alleging that certain sensitive materials were brought into India without following due process of law, thereby causing heavy loss of revenue and also compromising on national security and safety. 2. The specific allegation of the petitioners is that in the year 2009 “Aero India 2009” Exhibition (or what is popularly known as “Aero Show”) was held at Bengaluru and some of the companies engaged in the business of running supply chain and logistical supports imported Fighter Aircraft F-16 and its ground support handling equipments to show-case the Fighter Aircraft in the exhibition and while doing so, the imported goods and materials were not subjected to customs duty. The petitioners allege that the action of those companies amounted to smuggling activities. It is further contended that at the instance of the petitioners, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted enquiry in the matter. The petitioners aver that the investigating officer was transferred and thereafter, there was no progress in the investigation. It is in this background that these writ petitions are filed seeking directions to the respondents to submit all records, including the original investigation file, call for a detailed report, collect the import duty and taxes evaded along with interest, fine and penalty and to recover the sensitive military goods smuggled into the country and ensure the safety and security of the country. 3. These petitions join the list of unwarranted PILs filed by self serving and discontented persons, either to serve their own private interest or to score a point against their business rivals. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is a Customs agent and the 2nd petitioner is a consultant in the field of Customs. They are business rivals of the companies against whom allegations are made in these writ petitions. Though petitioners have made allegations against a few companies, those companies are not impleaded as party respondents to these writ petitions. 4. Statement of objections have been filed by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6, i.e., the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the Additional Commissioner of Customs, denying the petition averments. The replies bring forth the following aspects: (i) The cause of action arose in the year 2009, complaint was lodged in July 2012, three years after the goods were imported and these petitions are filed in the month June, 2017. 3, 4 and 6, i.e., the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the Additional Commissioner of Customs, denying the petition averments. The replies bring forth the following aspects: (i) The cause of action arose in the year 2009, complaint was lodged in July 2012, three years after the goods were imported and these petitions are filed in the month June, 2017. These petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (ii) As per Customs Notification No.3/89, dated 09.01.1989, Customs duty is exempted for goods imported for display in exhibition sponsored by the Government of India, held in public interest and open to general public, subject to8 certain conditions that are listed in the said Notification and the imported goods are re-exported in full, within six months. (iii) The investigating Officer concluded the investigation on the basis of records/data collected in respect of the case. (iv) The goods were imported on 03.02.2009 and re-exported on 22.02.2009, fulfilling the stipulations contained in the Notification. (v) Similar writ petition, styled as public interest litigation was filed in W.P.No.5973/2011 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 04.02.2011, recording the statement of the Commissioner of Customs. The 2nd petitioner herein was also the 2nd petitioner in that matter. 5. The petitioners herein have filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections. What needs to be highlighted from the rejoinder to paragraph No.11 of the statement of objections is as under: “The petitioner No.2 had come across improper importation of flying in Aircrafts for the display at various Aero India Trade Shows, therefore, the petitioner No.2 had preferred a PIL before this Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which was disposed of as per order No.W.P.No.5973/2011.” 6. Heard Sri. Nischal Padhya, petitioner No.1, party-in-person, Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri. Akash B. Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Smt. M. Birdy Aiyappa, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. It is noteworthy that the petitioners are business rivals of the companies against whom allegations are made in these petitions. It is evident that the opportunity to import the goods for Aero Show was lost to the rival companies and, therefore, the petitioners have an axe to grind against those companies. 7. It is noteworthy that the petitioners are business rivals of the companies against whom allegations are made in these petitions. It is evident that the opportunity to import the goods for Aero Show was lost to the rival companies and, therefore, the petitioners have an axe to grind against those companies. The subject matter of these petitions and grounds urged leave nothing to doubt that the petitioners are out to harass the rival companies and are attempting to secure the orders/directions against them on the specious grounds of the loss to exchequer. 8. The cause of action in this matter arose in the year 2009 and the petitioners, after lapse of three years made a complaint to the concerned authority and then, approached this court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction only in the month of June, 2017. The casual explanation offered is that though the complaint was lodged in the year 2012, the investigation was tardy and the petitioners were pursuing the matter before the investigating officer. It remains well-settled that delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In an appropriate case, this Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the petitioners taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental rights are involved, the matter is still within the discretion of this Court. 9. As noted supra, the petitioners have an axe to grind against the rival companies in the business of import and export. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in 1993 Cri. LJ 600 held as follows: “107. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of PIL, will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating a personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 10. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating a personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 10. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2004 SC 280 , their Lordships have held that: “12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of 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 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 inquiry and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the 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 considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motive. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate case, with exemplary costs.” 11. In S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, reported in (1982) 2 SCR 365 , their Lordships have held that: “24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. Andre Rabie has warned that ‘political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the political process, may try to use the courts to further their aims’. These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid. Andre Rabie has warned that ‘political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the political process, may try to use the courts to further their aims’. These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid. It is also necessary for the court to bear in mind that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and justifiability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the executive and the legislature by the Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the court to deal with public interest litigation because it is new jurisprudence which the court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrine which will change the complexion of the law and which were so far embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born.” 12. In the present case, the oblique motive and relentless efforts of the petitioners, directed against their business rivals, is more than obvious. Not being satisfied with an earlier attempt, the tirade continues inasmuch as, the petitioners are seeking to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, keeping the affected parties in dark. 13. This Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction and deciding a public interest litigation is cautioned to take great care, lest its wide jurisdiction is abused by the petulant. The laudable objective with which PIL jurisdiction was evolved by the Courts, cannot be allowed to be misused by unscrupulous persons, masquerading in the garb of public spirited persons. 14. The material on record clearly establishes the fact that the companies which imported F-16 Fighter Aircraft and its ground handling equipments have suffered legitimate Customs duty in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act and the Notification. Most importantly, the provisions as contained in the Notification No.3/89-CUS., dated 09.01.1989 have been adhered to and the goods have been re-exported within the stipulated period. Most importantly, the provisions as contained in the Notification No.3/89-CUS., dated 09.01.1989 have been adhered to and the goods have been re-exported within the stipulated period. It cannot, but be concluded that the petitioners are aware of all these aspects and have filed the instant petitions with an oblique motive while making reckless allegations and have gravely abused the process of law. 15. This Court is of the firm opinion that this is a fit case where the petition should be dismissed while imposing exemplary costs on the petitioners and other non-monetary directions. 16. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed. The petitioners are saddled with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) each. The costs shall be paid to the 5th respondent, Commissioner of Customs, within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the 5th respondent shall proceed to recover the same from the petitioners. The costs recovered shall be remitted to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. 17. The petitioners shall stand barred from filing any public interest litigation before this Court in future. However, this debarment shall not apply to the causes of personal nature.