ORDER : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the State. 3. The present PIL has been filed alleging certain irregularities in the matter of issuance of NIT and sanction of work for an amount of Rs. 5,50,78,884/- for. North Lakhimpur Municipal Board for construction/improvement of 31 numbers of roads with paver blocks within the North Lakhimpur Municipal-area. 4. The main allegation in this petition is that after the said amount was received by the Board, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Executive Officer, North Lakhimpur Municipal Board, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur and the Chairman, North Lakhimpur Municipal Board, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur urgently called a meeting of all the Ward Commissioners for the purpose of issuing NIT for utilizing the said fund for which a resolution was taken on 22.02.2019 for issuing NIT on or before 01.03.2019. However, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, for the reasons best known to them, did not issue any NIT as per resolution of the Board but later on, after about four months on 06.06.2019, an NIT was issued by respondent No. 5 without adopting any fresh resolution as per the Rules of Assam Municipal Act, 1956. 5. It has been also alleged that there is a syndicate working for allotment of contract works and it has been collecting huge amount of money from each of the selected contractors through middlemen on the behest of Executive Officer as well as the Chairman of the Board. It has been further alleged that though these irregularities were brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, the authorities had turned a blind eye. It has been also stated that on earlier occasion, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a PIL being PIL No. 78/2015 regarding misappropriation of huge amounts of money and this Court had directed an enquiry in that regard. 6. This Court considering the issues raised, passed an order on 04.05.2020 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, District-Lakhimpur to refer the entire record in relation to the issue raised by virtue of this petition and conduct an enquiry and file a personal affidavit on the basis of the facts emerging from the records. 6. This Court considering the issues raised, passed an order on 04.05.2020 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, District-Lakhimpur to refer the entire record in relation to the issue raised by virtue of this petition and conduct an enquiry and file a personal affidavit on the basis of the facts emerging from the records. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur has now filed an affidavit on 16.06.2020 enclosing a copy of the said enquiry report prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, copy of which was furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.8.2020 of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners was granted time to file affidavit in the context of the contents of the enquiry report as the enquiry report categorically stated that no impropriety or corruption had taken place in the execution of the works and the matter was directed to be listed on 21.9.2020. Accordingly, the matter has come up before this Court today. On 21.08.2020, when this Court allowed time to the petitioners to file affidavit, it was made clear that affidavit ought to be filed on behalf of the petitioners positively by 14.9.2020. This, however, has not been done. 8. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners again prays for some time to file affidavit in response to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. 9. Ordinarily, we would have granted time to the petitioners to file affidavit. However, considering the fact that this is a PIL relating to certain issues which have been clarified by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, in his report, which does not disclose any serious irregularity involving any public interest, we are not inclined to grant time to the petitioners and rather, opt to close this PIL at this stage. 10. The concept of Public Interest Litigation was evolved in the 1980s to deal with persons who did not have easy access to justice by virtue of the disadvantageous position they were placed in because of economic, social or other reasons to espouse their own cause specifically when relating to violation of their fundamental rights. The classical view of Public Interest Litigation in India was succinctly put by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, a great exponent of this novel jurisprudence in the celebrated case of S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 in the following words, "17. The classical view of Public Interest Litigation in India was succinctly put by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, a great exponent of this novel jurisprudence in the celebrated case of S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 in the following words, "17. It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.............". 11. In due course, scope of the PIL jurisdiction got widened through juridical evolution as explained in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807 "43. In this judgment, we would like to deal with the origin and development of public interest litigation. We deem it appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases: Phase I.-It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalised groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Court or the High Courts. Phase II.-It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments, etc. etc. Phase III.-It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance." 12. Phase II.-It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments, etc. etc. Phase III.-It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance." 12. It may not be necessary to dwell upon in detail about these developmental phases of the PIL jurisdiction in this proceeding except to mention the concern of the Court in preventing misuse of this wide jurisdiction as observed in the aforesaid decision in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), in the following words: "143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts." 13. We would also like to make the observation that the public injury or the public harm espoused in the PIL should be clearly discernible and demonstrable and such issues should be of such serious nature that these cannot be adequately and effectively be dealt with under the normal writ proceedings of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review, which would necessitate invoking the wide jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation. Furthermore, some of the important materials, if not all, justifying invoking Public Interest Litigation must be already incorporated in the pleadings so that the court can take forward the issues of public interest raised in the pleadings, for certainly, the forum of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used to cause a roving and fishing enquiry purportedly for preventing public injury or protecting public interest alleged. In this regard, it may be worthwhile to remind ourselves of the following observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 : (2011): "13. In this regard, it may be worthwhile to remind ourselves of the following observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 : (2011): "13. Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which the court may proceed. The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs. The information furnished by him should not be vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even in PIL, the litigant cannot approach the court to have a fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously. Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks the standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class. (Vide A. Hamsaveni v. State of T.N.: (1994) 6 SCC 51 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1277: (1994) 28 ATC 240, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of WB.: (2004) 3 SCC 349 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 865: AIR 2004 SC 280 , Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Orissa: (2005) 13 SCC 452 and A. Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council, Perambalur.) 14. In the present case, what has been alleged is that there have been irregularities in floating of tender and involvement of middlemen. It may be noted that the petitioners had themselves mentioned that they had already approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4989/2019 relating to irregularities in the aforesaid floating of tender thereby clearly indicating that this is an aspect which could be taken care of under the normal writ proceedings. 15. Perusal of the report prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur would also indicate that the Deputy Commissioner had undertaken a detailed enquiry into the matter by referring to the records and on the basis of the enquiry conducted, arrived at the following conclusion:- "1. The selection of roads for construction/improvement of 31 nos. 15. Perusal of the report prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur would also indicate that the Deputy Commissioner had undertaken a detailed enquiry into the matter by referring to the records and on the basis of the enquiry conducted, arrived at the following conclusion:- "1. The selection of roads for construction/improvement of 31 nos. of roads with paver blocks within North Lakhimpur Municipal area was done as per Assam Municipal Act, 1956 and further validated/ratified by the Board Members of North Lakhimpur Municipal Board vide Board Resolution dated 30.09.2019 as per judgment dated 26.09.2019 of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in connection with Case No. WP(C) No. 4989/2019. 2. Transparent procedure was followed during issue of NIT for construction/improvement of 31 nos of roads with paver blocks within North Lakhimpur Municipal area on 06.06.2019. The NIT was published in two widely circulated daily Newspapers in Assam, one English and one Assamese, on 08.06.2019 and sufficient time was given for preparation and submission of Tender as per PWD Roads format. Tender document and evaluation of Technical bid and Financial bid were duly vetted by the Town Level Committee constituted as per Urban Development Department Notification No. UDD (T)2/2015/53 dated Dispur the 30th January, 2016 and accordingly work for all the 31 nos of contracts were awarded to the (L1) lowest quoted bidder after due approval of the Town Level Committee. Hence, sufficient time was provided and enough nos of checks were ensured in the process of selection of contractors as mentioned above. 3. The performance of North Lakhimpur Municipal Board has indeed improved considerably in terms of implementation of various development works under Central Govt./State Govt. Schemes and in terms of Revenue Collection contrary to the allegations as mentioned in the PIL about the deterioration of the overall functioning of North Lakhimpur Municipal Board during the tenure of Shri Debashis Goswami as Executive Director." 16. Schemes and in terms of Revenue Collection contrary to the allegations as mentioned in the PIL about the deterioration of the overall functioning of North Lakhimpur Municipal Board during the tenure of Shri Debashis Goswami as Executive Director." 16. The aforesaid enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, the highest authority of the District, who has also filed a sworn personal affidavit to that effect as mentioned above, enclosing a copy the enquiry report and we do not see any reason to ignore such a solemn affirmation made by the Deputy Commissioner though we are not giving a stamp of approval as to correctness or otherwise to the factual findings arrived at and if there is any irregularity or wrong projection of facts and conclusions, certainly these can be matters of challenge by seeking judicial review under the normal writ proceedings and not in the form of a PIL, a jurisdiction with very wide amplitude and scope which may even traverse in areas not specifically contemplated earlier. 17. It has been also noted that there is no specific and credible material or evidence relied upon by the petitioner as regards the allegation of misappropriation of fund in the petition. The petitioners have not furnished or annexed any document to show existence of the irregularities and how the alleged middlemen or syndicate function by giving details of the same in the petition. It rather appears to be a general allegation without support of any specific material evidence in that regard. Mere suspicion or allegation cannot be the foundation for a judicial proceeding much less in a PIL. 18. After the filing of the report by the Deputy Commissioner Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is trying to procure certain information and materials by applying before the competent authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005. We are afraid such a method of pursuing a PIL would amount to converting this forum for conducting a fishing enquiry, which, as already observed in Narmada Bachao Andolan, (supra) would be impermissible. If any petition is filed in the form of a PIL, it must already contain sufficient materials and evidence by which PIL jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked. If any petition is filed in the form of a PIL, it must already contain sufficient materials and evidence by which PIL jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked. We do not find any such material in this regard in the petition apart from the general allegations and giving option to the petitioners at this stage to gather materials to support the general allegation of corruption and misappropriation of public fund made in this petition would amount to proving a forum to the petitioners for a roving and fishing enquiry which the law does not contemplate. 19. We would also like to observe that even if the report of the Deputy Commissioner is found to be erroneous by the petitioners on the basis of materials that may be collected in that regard, certainly that can give rise to a cause of action for judicial review of an administrative action, which may be pursued in the normal writ proceedings. 20. We are of the view that PIL cannot be used merely as a tool for unearthing illegalities and thus be an investigative forum to establish any illegality but a means to prevent public harm or injury and protect public interest for which the Court may exercise all the incidental powers which may involve a limited enquiry in that regard, which is different from launching an investigation to find out any alleged illegality. 21. For the reasons discussed above, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. Accordingly, the PIL is closed.