ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Suyash Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. The petitioner was a Member of Parliament of the 14th Lok Sabha and he was also elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly in 2003 from the Dongargaon constituency. 3. In the present petition, styled as a public interest litigation, at ‘(B) Subject matter in brief’, it is stated as follows : “The present Petition has been filed in public interest challenging the wordings and interpretation of Clause 1.1.4 of Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 floated by the Respondent No.2 unjustifiably restricting the competition for the project for the issuance of High Security Registration Plates for existing vehicles in the State of Chhattisgarh, to only those manufacturers who have implemented High Security Registration Plate Projects in five whole states for one or more years in the last five years. It is submitted that the Clause itself is worded vaguely and the Respondent No.2 has given it an interpretation which is plainly contrary to the wordings of the clause and thereby limited participation to only those manufacturers who have obtained the specified experience pursuant to agreements with State/UT Governments. As a result only three out of the eighteen Type-approved manufacturers would qualify for award of the contract. This unjustifiably restricts the competition and impacts the prices offered, as clearly visible from a Petition filed by one of the manufacturers whose bid has been rejected, who claims that the L-1 bid is 31.58% higher than its bid. This higher price would have to be borne by the vehicle owners of the State of Chhattisgarh.” 4. Following prayers are made in the petition : “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and call for the records pertaining to the present case. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction more particularly the one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents 1 & 2 particularly and thereby set aside/quash the Clause No.1.1.4, 3.1 and 6.8 of the Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 floated by the Respondent No.2. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction more particularly the one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents 1 & 2 particularly and thereby set aside/quash the Clause No.1.1.4, 3.1 and 6.8 of the Tender No. TD/02/TC dated 13.11.2021 floated by the Respondent No.2. (iii) That, Alternatively, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents more particularly to Respondent no.1 & 2 to declare and direct that Clause 1.1.4 shall be given a plain and literal interpretation thereby allowing experience gained by HSRP manufacturers through Agreements other than those with State/UT Governments to be considered for the purposes of determining eligibility for the award of contract; (iv) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents more particularly to Respondent no.1 & 2 to open the financial bids of all Type-approved HSRP manufactures who have submitted bids; (v) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents more particularly to Respondent no.1 & 2 to declare as void and illegal any contract that may have been executed by the State Government pursuant to the arbitrary tender process followed by it; (vi) That any order/relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 5. The petition was filed on 11.04.2022. 6. A writ petition was filed by one of the tenderers, being Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., registered as WPC No. 786 of 2022, challenging the rejection of its tender at the stage of techno-commercial evaluation on account of non-fulfilling the eligibility criteria for non-compliance of Clauses 1.1.4, 4.3.1(xi) and 6.8 of Instructions to Bidders, for short, ITB. By an order dated 16.02.2022, while issuing notice, this Court rejected the interim prayer to stay the tender proceedings. 7. Another writ petition was filed by another tenderer, namely, FTA HSRP Solutions Private Ltd., registered as WPC No. 809 of 2022, wherein also challenge was made to rejection of the bid of the petitioner at the stage of techno-commercial evaluation. By an order dated 18.02.2022, while issuing notice, the prayer for interim order to stay the tender process was rejected. 8. By an order dated 18.02.2022, while issuing notice, the prayer for interim order to stay the tender process was rejected. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 18.02.2022 would go to show that, amongst others, techno commercial evaluation of the petitioner therein was rejected on account of non-compliance of Clause 1.1.4. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that Letter of Acceptance has been issued by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 10. Mr. Pande submits that price bid of the petitioner in WPC No.786 of 2022 is lower than the bid of the L-1 bidder by 31.58% and therefore, there is an element of public interest in this case in the sense that a higher price would have to be borne by the vehicle owners of the State. 11. Mr. Shrivastava submits that this petition cannot be construed as a public interest litigation. It is submitted that the petitioner has copiously borrowed the averments made in the earlier two writ petitions and no new material is placed before this Court. He submits that when all necessary steps have taken to award the contract, this petition has been filed as a proxy petition in the garb of public interest litigation. When two writ petitions are already pending and when other so called affected parties, who are big business establishments, have not approached this Court challenging the tender conditions, no case is made out to entertain this public interest litigation, in respect of, essentially, a contractual matter. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333 , with particular reference to paragraph 88. 12. Paragraph 88 reads as follows : “88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to Court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the Courts. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the Courts. We may, however, add that Public Interest Litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a Court of law, but, a Public Interest Litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the Court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the Court.” 13. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition and that the Courts, before entertaining the public interest litigation, should ensure that the petition is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing of the public interest litigation. It is laid down therein that the Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions filed for extraneous considerations. 14. This petition has been filed with an inordinate delay. We also find that there is no public interest involved. The petitioner is a stranger to the tender process. Two writ petitions, filed at the instance of unsuccessful tenderers, are already pending before this Court. That being the position, we decline to entertain this petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 15. The petitioner will deposit the security amount within a period of two weeks from today.