ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. The present Public Interest Litigation is filed alleging that respondent No.12, namely, the Alluri Seetharamaraju Education Society (ASHRAM) College, Malkapuram, Eluru, had encroached Government lands admeasuring Ac.21.46 cents, encroached the bunds of Godavari left canal and is making illegal structures and laying roads, without taking any permission from the authorized or competent authority and has been illegally releasing syringes, bio wastages, chemicals and other excreta into the SK-4 canal resulting in pollution of water and spread of several communicable fatal diseases. 2. It is pleaded in the petition that the land to the extent of Ac.87.33 cents was purchased by respondent No.12 as per Resolution No.75 dated 30.05.1999 of the respondent No.11 and permission for land conversion was granted for an extent of Ac.84.77 cents only to respondent No.12 and the extent of “Ac.21.96 cents” is not covered by the land conversion and, illegal constructions like toilets, generator sheds, canteen sheds, bio waste dumping area and incinerator plants, electrical sub-stations, auditorium and D-quarters were constructed in the encroached land. Respondent No.12 had constructed security post on irrigation canal and is not allowing the farmers of that area to pass through to go to their fields. The canal bund was also laid with BT roads on irrigation canal bund. A chart is given mentioning the details of survey numbers and extents of land encroached by respondent No.12 in various survey numbers measuring Ac.21.46 cents. 3. It is further pleaded that the lands covered in R.S.Nos.255/1, 256, 247, 214, 212, 151, 257, 258, 259, 185 and 186 are Government Poramboke and main canal bunds, as per the Government revenue records. Despite such encroachment and illegal activities, respondents No.1 to 10 had not taken any steps for clearing the encroachments and unauthorized structures. 4. The sum and substance of the allegations made by the petitioner is that respondent No.12 had encroached the land to an extent of Ac.21.46 cents in the survey numbers as indicated in the petition. 5. At this juncture, it is to be noted that it is not understood on what basis Ac.21.96 cents is said to be not covered by land conversion, when the case presented by the petitioner itself is that, out of purchase area of Ac.87.33 cents, land conversion is granted for an extent of Ac.84.77 cents. 6. Respondent No.12 against whom the allegations are levelled had filed an affidavit. 6. Respondent No.12 against whom the allegations are levelled had filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is stated as follows: (i) Respondent No.12 is a non-profit society which has established a Medical College and an attached Teaching Hospital in the year 1999 and the same is located in a vast area of about 100 acres. The Medical college was started with an annual intake of 100 MBBS students after obtaining necessary permission from Medical Council of India, Government of India and Government of Andhra Pradesh and the college is affiliated to Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. The allegations of encroachment of Government ceiling land and bunds of Godavari left canal and making of illegal structures and laying of roads, without taking permission, are denied. It is stated that the Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner, who was earlier an employee of respondent No.12 and removed from service and thereafter, the petitioner has been approaching various authorities by making false allegations against respondent No.12. It is stated that another co-employee of the petitioner, namely, Mr. Sanku Yoganjaneya, who was working as a Lab Technician, was also removed from service of respondent No.12, and these two persons developed grudge against the institution. A writ petition was filed earlier before this Court, registered as W.P.No.4855 of 2019, by making allegations of unauthorized constructions in the premises of respondent No.12. It is stated that when no order was passed on 08.04.2019 in the said writ petition, the present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation came to be filed on 01.05.2019 with similar allegations. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier working as a lab technician in a Diagnostic centre of respondent No.12, but he was removed as the centre came to be closed in the year 2017. (ii) As per the resolution of the Malkapuram Gram Panchayat dated 27.09.1999, construction permission was granted to it. Subsequently, on 16.10.2002, the Panchayat Secretary granted permission for extension of G + 1 for hospital building. Thereafter, on 15.11.2007, permission for north block of hospital, nursing hostel and laundry was granted. (ii) As per the resolution of the Malkapuram Gram Panchayat dated 27.09.1999, construction permission was granted to it. Subsequently, on 16.10.2002, the Panchayat Secretary granted permission for extension of G + 1 for hospital building. Thereafter, on 15.11.2007, permission for north block of hospital, nursing hostel and laundry was granted. Further, it is stated that the Director of Town & Country Planning had granted technical Clearance for constructions of the existing and proposed structures (PG Hostel and Library Building) in R.S.Nos.117, 187 to 193, 198, 199, 200/2, 209 to 211, 218, 248 to 254 and 255/2 of Malkapuram Village, Eluru, West Godavari and thereafter, by another proceedings dated 29.08.2018, technical clearance was granted for an additional floor (2nd floor) and accordingly, constructions were raised. (iii) Total extent owned by respondent No.12 is Ac.87.73 cents in Malkapuram Panchayat of West Godavari District and respondent No.12 applied for conversion of the land to non-agricultural use and on 07.02.2019, the Revenue Divisional Officer, after obtaining legal opinion and enquiry report from the Tahsildar, has granted permission. It is also pleaded that respondent No.12 set up a separate Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) of 1250 KLO in their land to treat the effluents that are generated in the medical college and hospital, and the treated water is being used to water the plants and lawn. During rainy season, the treated water is being pumped to fire water storage tank with capacity of two lakh litres. It is stated that the water generated from lab and operation theatres is sent to the STP and there is no scope of the water getting diverted to the canal. Further, it is stated that respondent No.12 had entered into an agreement with M/s Safenvinon, a government recognized establishment for collection and disposal of bio-waste. In addition to the above, a separate pit had been set up in college premises for dumping general waste and the compost that is generated is used at the college lawn. Respondent No.12 is a member of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF) with the aforesaid M/s Safenvinon, which collects bio-waste on daily basis. (iv) The allegation of encroachment of the government land, ceiling lands, main canal bunds to an extent of Ac.21.46 cents is denied. Respondent No.12 is a member of Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBMWTF) with the aforesaid M/s Safenvinon, which collects bio-waste on daily basis. (iv) The allegation of encroachment of the government land, ceiling lands, main canal bunds to an extent of Ac.21.46 cents is denied. It is stated that respondent No.12 is owning lands as per the details mentioned in Annexure P3 filed by the writ petitioner and evidently, respondent No.12 is not owning any land in those survey numbers mentioned in the writ affidavit, where there is an alleged encroachment. The allegation that the land conversion was not obtained in respect of the alleged Ac.21.96 cents is denied. It is stated that in respect of the lands that are owned by respondent No.12, application had been made to the competent authority and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru vide proceedings dated 07.02.2019 considered the representation of respondent No.12 for exemption from conversion charges under Section 7 (c) of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 and passed orders permitting conversion of the land to non-agricultural purposes. (v) It is further stated that the writ petitioner earlier made a complaint dated 22.7.2019 alleging that respondent No.12 encroached Ac.22.00 of government land and constructed buildings and based on the said complaint, the Mandal Surveyor, Eluru, Mandal Inspector-1 and Village Revenue Officer inspected the premises of respondent No.12 and found that there is no encroachment and that the findings of the inspection team was also intimated by Tahsildar, Eluru to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 31.07.2019. (vi) The allegation that respondent No.12 constructed an over bridge across Godavari canal by encroaching the land is denied. It is stated that based on the allegation levelled against respondent No.12, the Executive Engineer, Godavari West Division, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Eluru Unit and in the said report, it was categorically observed that there are no encroachments over the canal bank. Permission proceedings dated 20.01.2002 issued to respondent No.12 for beautification of the left bank of Eluru canal was also referred therein. It was further observed that respondent No.12 formed a BT Road and took up gardening work and the road is being used by the farmers and also by the department officers for inspection of canal and that there is no obstruction for free flow of water. It was further observed that respondent No.12 formed a BT Road and took up gardening work and the road is being used by the farmers and also by the department officers for inspection of canal and that there is no obstruction for free flow of water. It is stated that since its establishment in the year 1999, each and every construction is made with valid permission. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.9 i.e., Executive Engineer, Godavari Western Division, Nidadavole, Water Resources Department, West Godavari District, on behalf of himself and on behalf of respondents 2 and 8, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department, and the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Eluru, West Godavari District, respectively, it is stated that respondent No.12 had taken permission in the year 2000 for construction of temporary bridge across Godavari Eluru canal from the Irrigation Department of Andhra Pradesh and later on, had applied for construction of permanent bridge across Godavari Eluru canal in the year 2001. When the proposals were in process, the management of ASHRAM hospital had constructed permanent bridge across Godavari Eluru canal and subsequently, the Government had accorded permission vide order dated 09.01.2020 to continue the bridge until the implementation of IWT project, and it has been certified by Roads and Buildings department that the bridge is safe and stable. It is further stated that respondent No.12 had obtained permission for beautification of surroundings i.e., plantation on Left Bank and slopes of Godavari Eluru canal from the Irrigation Department for maintaining a beautiful and hygienic atmosphere, and as part of beautification, they have also formed approach roads for movement of patients, doctors and medical students and their vehicles on the left bund of the canal. The bridge and road are being used by the farmers for their agricultural activities and also by the Department for inspection of the canal and other structures. Respondent No.12 had made its own arrangements for disposal of syringes, bio wastages and chemicals etc., and they have also constructed sewage treatment plant for treatment of sewage from the hospital, and after treatment, they have been using the treated water for plantation and gardening in the premises of ASHRAM Hospital and college. Respondent No.12 had made its own arrangements for disposal of syringes, bio wastages and chemicals etc., and they have also constructed sewage treatment plant for treatment of sewage from the hospital, and after treatment, they have been using the treated water for plantation and gardening in the premises of ASHRAM Hospital and college. It is further stated that respondent No.12 had purchased ayacut land from private land owners and constructed Hospital and College buildings and there are no irrigation channels in the land in which ASHRAM Hospital buildings had been constructed except small irrigation field channels in the ayacut lands purchased by them for their hospital purpose. The field channels do not come under the purview of the irrigation department. It is stated that a notice was, however, issued to respondent No.12 to remove the security post etc., in response to which they shifted the security post from canal bund to their hospital premises. It is asserted that there was no case of closing of canals to raise the unauthorised constructions. The allegation that respondent No.12 is polluting the water is also denied. It is also stated that the Tahsildar, Eluru Rural Mandal, had given a report that there is no encroachment on the irrigation canals. 8. Respondent No.10, the Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal, in his affidavit stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 22.07.2019 was forwarded by the respondent No.5 to him and in response, a detailed inspection was made by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor along with Village Revenue Officer, Malkapuram and the result of the inspection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.07.2019. A perusal of the letter dated 31.07.2019 goes to show that as per FLR, Ac.2.83 cents in R.S.No.251 is recorded as Zeroyith land and the pattadar is Smt.Adusumilli Satyavathamma and that as per Adangal, D-patta was issued to Sri Papolu Kodanda Ramayya for an extent of Ac.0.30 ½ cents and Sri Vasepalli Subbayya for an extent of Ac.0.30 cents. It is further stated that the said land is kept vacant and buildings have not been constructed. 9. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.5, primarily, reliance is placed on the affidavit filed by the respondent No.9. It is further stated that the said land is kept vacant and buildings have not been constructed. 9. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.5, primarily, reliance is placed on the affidavit filed by the respondent No.9. It is, however, pleaded that during inspection, it was found that except Ac.0.60 ½ cents in R.S.No.251 of Malkapuram Village, no other extent was encroached by respondent No.12-hospital/Medical College and the same was duly intimated to the writ petitioner through office endorsement dated 31.07.2019 of the respondent No.10, Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal, which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner. It is pleaded that the allegations are misconceived and, it appears that the Public Interest Litigation has emanated out of grouse developed in the minds of the writ petitioner and other employees, whose services were terminated on disciplinary grounds. 10. It is to be noted that in the affidavit of respondent No.10, no encroachment of Ac.0.60 ½ cents is attributed to the respondent No.12 and it appears that in the affidavit of respondent No.5, encroachment by respondent No.12 is wrongly recorded. In the letter dated 31.07.2019 also, issued by respondent No.10, there is no allegation of any encroachment by respondent No.12. 11. Respondent No.11, i.e., the Panchayat Secretary, Malkapuram Gram Panchayat, Eluru Rural Mandal, West Godavari District, filed a counteraffidavit stating that he had not received any complaint against respondent No.12. It is stated that respondent No.12 is not releasing the bio wastage and any other hazardous chemical waste, and no surrounding land owners of respondent No.12 had made any written or oral complaint to the Gram Panchayat about the contamination of the canal water or air pollution. It is also stated that the Gram Panchayat had given „no objection? for conversion of the land of respondent No.12 to an extent of Ac.87.73 cents from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. 12. From the affidavits filed, it is seen that there is no encroachment by respondent No.12 as alleged by the writ petitioner. The petitioner has also suppressed the fact of submission of his complaint dated 22.07.2019, based on which an inspection was carried out as stated in the affidavit of the respondent No.10. In the reply-affidavit filed by him, he has not disputed that he had not received the communication dated 31.07.2019. 13. From the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that he is presently working as Lab Assistant in a private organization. In the reply-affidavit filed by him, he has not disputed that he had not received the communication dated 31.07.2019. 13. From the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that he is presently working as Lab Assistant in a private organization. The petitioner did not disclose the fact that he was earlier working as Lab Assistant in the establishment of respondent No.12 and was terminated from service by order dated 11.03.2017. It is also apparent from the pleadings in the reply affidavit that the order of termination is challenged by the petitioner and the same is pending adjudication. These are material facts going to the root of the matter. It is evident that at the time of filing the writ petition, the writ petitioner did not make disclosure of true and relevant facts. It can also be construed that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of he being a terminated employee of respondent No.12. It is evident that the petitioner has an element of personal interest in the affairs of respondent No.12. 14. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349 , the Hon?ble Supreme Court observed as under: “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 the 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 injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of 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 motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. 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 motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.” 15. In view of the above, we do not consider it to be an application filed in public interest. We find no merit in this application and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. We, however, choose not to impose any cost on the petitioner.