ORDER : Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. In paragraph 1 of the petition which is filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have averred as under: “1. That the petitioners are social activists and are in public life, safeguarding the interests of the public who are deprived of their basic fundamental rights. Petitioners are also volunteers of several social organizations established for the purpose of fighting injustice and oppression against the marginalized groups in the society. The petitioners do not have any private interest in filing this petition and they are not the parties directly affected by the incidents narrated in this writ petition. The writ petition is filed in the larger interests of the public.” 3. Considering the said vague averments, a direction was issued to the petitioners to file additional affidavit specifying the nature of their activities as social activists by giving all the material particulars and specifying the activities undertaken by them in safeguarding the interests of public who are deprived of their basic fundamental rights. Both the petitioners have filed separate affidavits. 4. Before we deal with the affidavits filed by the petitioners pursuant to the said order, we must note here that the learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the particulars of one private complaint pending against the first petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471, 477 read with Section 149 of IPC. As regards the second petitioner, particulars of five criminal cases have been set out. The petitioners have suppressed the fact of criminal cases against them. Taking the averments made in the affidavits as correct, the petitioners have not disclosed the name of a single social organization of which they are members which is established for the purpose of fighting injustice and oppression of the marginalized groups in the society. They have not set out the activities done by them for safeguarding the interests of public who are deprived of their basic fundamental rights. 5. The affidavit of first petitioner indicates that he is associated with certain cooperative societies which are either primary agricultural credit cooperative societies, multipurpose cooperative societies or marketing societies. He has stated that he was elected as member of Gram Panchayat and as Chairman of the Gram Panchayat. He has also stated that he was a Director of a cooperative society. The affidavit of first petitioner indicates that he is associated with certain cooperative societies which are either primary agricultural credit cooperative societies, multipurpose cooperative societies or marketing societies. He has stated that he was elected as member of Gram Panchayat and as Chairman of the Gram Panchayat. He has also stated that he was a Director of a cooperative society. In the affidavit of the second petitioner, he has stated that he was elected and reelected to the Town Panchayath. However, in both the affidavits, the activities as alleged in paragraph 1 of the petition have not been set out. This is apart from the fact that the petitioners have suppressed the offences/criminal cases registered against them. Even assuming that the information furnished by the Government regarding registration of offences is incorrect, the fact remains that the petitioners have made false or at least incorrect statements in paragraph 1 of the petition as they are unable to substantiate the same by filing affidavits. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be termed as pro bono litigants and the public interest litigation at their instance cannot be entertained. Moreover, we have issued notice in W.P.No.1868/2020, where similar issues have been raised. Hence, we decline to entertain this petition and the same is accordingly rejected.