ORDER : The petitioner alleges that there are certain so-called “private persons” doing business under quarrying licence No.16 in Siddalingapura, Gonimarur Post, Somawarpet Taluk, Kodagu District, in violation of the law. 2. The petitioner would further submit that in the name of operation of the said quarrying licence No.16, there is continuous trespass into the reserve forest and cutting of sandalwood trees and other valuable trees by closing the trench and making road through the reserve forest. The petitioner also submits that despite making representations along with copy of the paper publications, no action is being taken by the respondents. 3. The averments of the petitioner, as stated in the summary of the matter, are as under:- “The petitioner is permanent resident of place as shown in the cause title. Above public interest litigation is been filed without there being any private interest and to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble court about the violation of law done by the private persons doing business under quarry license No.16 in Siddalingapura, village Gonimarur post, Somwarapet Taluk, Kodagu District. In other words petitioner is genuinely interested in public cause and has no ulterior motive nor is the same a publicity gimmick keeping in mind the public importance and environment protection the present petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation. The grievance of the petitioner is to bring to the notice of this honorable court about the miss operation of Giddamma quarry license No.16 by the people wherein there is continuous trespass to the reserved forest area and cutting sandal wood trees and valuable trees and closing the reserved forest trench and making road through reserved forest for their business purpose and encroaching reserve forest land for querying. Inspite of giving representation no action has been taken by the respondents. Subsequently, another representation was given by the petitioner on 10.1.2018 along with copy of the paper publication. Inspite of representation no necessary action has been taken by the respondents. The petitioner being highly aggrieved by the in action on the part of the respondents has preferred the above writ petition.” 4. Subsequently, another representation was given by the petitioner on 10.1.2018 along with copy of the paper publication. Inspite of representation no necessary action has been taken by the respondents. The petitioner being highly aggrieved by the in action on the part of the respondents has preferred the above writ petition.” 4. Upon taking up of this matter for consideration, it is noticed that in this petition, where the allegations of the petitioner are pointedly directed against the “private persons” carrying on the operations under quarrying licence No.16 and where a copy of the said quarrying licence has been filed as Annexure ‘G’, the petitioner has chosen not to join the said so-called “private persons” as parties to this petition. 5. Upon our expressing reservations in entertaining this petition, where the petitioner has chosen not to join the persons concerned as parties against whom the allegations are made, learned counsel for the petitioner has, in the first place, attempted to submit that since the only prayer in the petition has been for direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the representations of the petitioner, such private persons have not been joined as parties. 6. However, upon our expressing reservations over such propositions, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have declined the prayer for withdrawal. 8. It remains trite that the PIL jurisdiction of this Court is essentially to be exercised for genuine public causes and is not meant for a petitioner to take up his particular grievance against an individual. Even if the petitioner had made any representation/representations and has any grievance that such representations are not being considered, it is but clear that such representations are directed only against the holders of quarrying licence No.16. As one of the basics and fundamentals of exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court, no such allegation could be looked into in the absence of the party against whom the same are made. 9. The petitioner has consciously chosen not to implead the concerned persons as parties to this writ petition. The suggestion that the petition is only for consideration of the representation has only been noted to be rejected. 9. The petitioner has consciously chosen not to implead the concerned persons as parties to this writ petition. The suggestion that the petition is only for consideration of the representation has only been noted to be rejected. Even if the proposition in a petition is for consideration of the representation, such a proposition cannot always be readily granted, without regard to the nature of the representation and petition; and the purport and object thereof. When the purport and object of a petition is of asserting certain allegations against a particular person, ordinarily, such a person ought to be a party in the petition, if at all any such directions for consideration of such representation are to be made. 10. Recently this Court, in the case of Dr. Savio Pereira v. Union of India and others, W.P. No. 25577/2018, disapproved filing of a PIL petition without impleading the persons against whom allegations were made, while observing:- “Apart from the above, we find that despite sending the notices questioning the appearance of aforesaid Sri Vinod Dhall and Sri K.K. Sharma before the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Appellate Tribunal and despite seeking specific reliefs only against them, the petitioner has omitted to even implead them as parties to this petition. Upon our expressing serious reservations on the frame of petition and omission to implead necessary parties, the petitioner would submit that he may now be permitted to implead them as parties. We are afraid, such a prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted in the present case, particularly when it is noticed that the petitioner has consciously served several notices to different authorities and has consciously drafted the petition. It is difficult to infer that the omission to implead the necessary parties had only been an inadvertent mistake. On the contrary, in the given set of facts and overall circumstances, the inference, if any, could only be of a conscious omission to implead the said persons as parties to this petition.” 11. The PIL petition aforesaid was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). 12. Upon our expressing reservations and pointing out that costs are required to be imposed for filing this petition while omitting to implead the necessary party, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that heavy costs may not be imposed on the petitioner. 13. The PIL petition aforesaid was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). 12. Upon our expressing reservations and pointing out that costs are required to be imposed for filing this petition while omitting to implead the necessary party, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that heavy costs may not be imposed on the petitioner. 13. However, we are clearly of the view that for filing such a petition without impleading the necessary party, the petitioner deserves to be saddled with some amount of costs. 14. In view of the present scenario, where some parts of the State are facing the effects of calamities, we are of the view that such amount of costs should be deposited in the concerned relief fund. 15. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), to be deposited by the petitioner in “the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund Natural Calamity, 2018”, within thirty days from today. 16. If the petitioner fails to deposit the costs within thirty days from today, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall ensure its recovery in accordance with law.