ORDER : 1) By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have prayed to issue a direction to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms (Respondent No. 7), to submit a complete and exact report of the Special Investigation Team (in short ‘SIT’) indicating alleged scam of Rs. 2000 – 3000/- cores along with its recommendations before this Court. The petitioners further have prayed to issue a direction to the respondents concerned to comply with the recommendations made by the SIT within a prescribed period along with a direction for initiation of criminal and/or other actions against the Officers/employees of NTPC, State Government and other persons including middlemen; or, to issue direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ in short), to conduct investigation and submit its report within a period of three months as regards the illegality committed in disbursement of the compensation by making false/ fabricated documents for land settlement and manifold other illegalities in connection with the land acquisition for mining of coal by the NTPC for its projects and other Centrally sponsored projects of other agencies under the Hazaribagh district in the State of Jharkhand and leading to an alleged whopping scam of Rs. 2000-3000 crores. 2) The petitioners have not filed the Public Interest Litigation strictly in accordance of the rules of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. There is non-compliance of the specific provisions of Rule 5 in the sense there has been no averment in paragraph 3 of the Public Interest Litigation regarding the credentials of the petitioners. In paragraph 3, it has been stated that the petitioners are citizens of the India and petitioner No.1 happens to be a freelance reporter in the print media as well as a RTI Activist. He is actively related in social work and public welfare. He has quoted his Aadhar Number. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be an Advocate by profession and practices in Hazaribag Civil Court and he has also associated himself with Karanpura Bachao Sangarsh Samiti, which is stated to be raising and voicing the issues of the illegal land acquisition/ dispossession of local people, illegality in the disbursement of compensation for acquired land in Hazaribagh District. They further state that there is no ulterior motive/ malice/ political motive/ profit motive involved in filing of the instant petition. They further state that there is no ulterior motive/ malice/ political motive/ profit motive involved in filing of the instant petition. It is stated by the petitioners that the instant matter is concerned with public at large and related to wastage of public money/embezzlement, as such, they are entitled to file instant petition for enforcement of legal and constitutional right of the public at large and the writ petition has been filed with the absolute intention of service the public interest. 3) In course of hearing on the previous date, the petitioner was granted the time to file a supplementary affidavit. A supplementary affidavit was filed on 27.09.2023 and another supplementary affidavit was filed on 30.09.2023. In the affidavit filed on 27.09.2023, petitioner No.1 has made many allegations against the Senior Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar. Mr. Ajit Kumar, in course of hearing, has made an attempt to defend and explained the allegations made against him, however, we are not concerned with the character or the past history of the Senior Advocate appearing for any of the parties in the Public Interest Litigation. Our main concerned is regarding the credentials of the petitioners. 4) In course of hearing, it also transpires from the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavits filed by the respondents that the petitioner no. 1 has been involved in six criminal cases. In fact, in one criminal case he has been convicted and the appeal is pending before this Court. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is arrayed an accused in two cases where the informants happen to be the employees of the NTPC. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 2, i.e., an advocate practicing in Hazaribagh, is also a land-looser on the land acquired by the NTPC and, therefore, we are of the opinion that he had a personal grievance against the respondents. 5) Thus, it is clear that not only the petitioners do not have a clear credentials and there is no material on record to show that they can be termed as public spirited persons. 5) Thus, it is clear that not only the petitioners do not have a clear credentials and there is no material on record to show that they can be termed as public spirited persons. It is also our firm opinion that the petitioner No.1 is guilty of suppression of material facts, in the sense that he has not reflected in the petition that he is involved in six criminal cases which are pending against him and in one of the cases he has been convicted by the competent criminal court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, Keeping in view the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1541, and placing reliance upon the Rule 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, we are of the opinion that the petitioners definitely lack credentials to maintain the Public Interest Litigation. 6) The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz., T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union Of India & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 28 and Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors, (2007) 14 SCC 281 , and would argue that in the genuine cases if the Court feels that the person who has filed the Public Interest Litigation does not have the requisites credentials, then also the Court is having jurisdiction to take up the case suo motu by appointing an Amicus. 7) In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in latter part of paragraph 23 has held that in a given exceptional case, where bona fides of the public interest litigant are in doubt, the Court may still examine the issue having regard to the serious nature of public cause and likely public injury by appointing an Amicus Curiae to assist the court, but under no circumstances, with the assistance of the doubtful public litigant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held no trust can be placed by court on mala fide applicant in public interest litigation. These are basic issues which are required to be satisfied by every public interest litigation. At paragraph 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that for the last few years, inflow of public interest litigation has increased manifold. Considerable judicial time is spent in dealing with such cases. These are basic issues which are required to be satisfied by every public interest litigation. At paragraph 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that for the last few years, inflow of public interest litigation has increased manifold. Considerable judicial time is spent in dealing with such cases. A person acting bona fide alone can approach the court in public interest. Such a remedy is not open to an unscrupulous person who acts, in fact, for someone else. The liberal rule of locus standi exercised in favour of bona fide public interest litigants has immensely helped the cause of justice. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that such litigants have been instrumental in drawing attention of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in matters of utmost importance and in securing orders and directions for many underprivileged, such as, pavement-dwellers, bonded labours, prisoners' conditions, children, sexual harassment of girls and women, cases of communal riots, innocent killings, etc. 8) While the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that the courts should not allow their process to be abused by a mere busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners without any interest or concern, except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration. In the latter case of Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd (supra), similar principle has been laid down. We find appropriate to quote the relevant paragraph which reads as under: “11. It is true that in certain cases even though the court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition was not in a public interest, yet if it finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter further in grated public interest, it can be done. This can be done by keeping the writ petitioner out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be done in exceptional and not in a routine manner.” 9) Thus, it is clear that in order to maintain a Public Interest Litigation successfully, the petitioner must have proper credentials. This can be done by keeping the writ petitioner out of picture and appointing an amicus curiae. This can only be done in exceptional and not in a routine manner.” 9) Thus, it is clear that in order to maintain a Public Interest Litigation successfully, the petitioner must have proper credentials. In this case, we have seen the petitioner No.1 has been facing criminal trial in 06 cases and in one case he has been convicted, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the appeal is pending before this Court. The petitioner very conveniently did not disclose this fact in the writ application. However, when it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, they have admitted that the petitioner No.1 has six criminal cases, which is a clear suppression of material facts. It is also borne out from the records the petitioner No.2 does not have any such credentials. He is stated to be an Advocate practicing at Hazaribagh and is also stated to be involved in Karanapura Bachao Sangarsh Samiti, but there is no supporting document to that effect. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that both the petitioners lack credentials to maintain this Public Interest Litigation before this Court. 10) Coming to alternative submissions, we pointedly asked Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, to satisfy us that this is a given case of exceptional nature. Except stating that an F.I.R. has been registered and no investigation has been done at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy us about the exceptional nature of the allegations made against the respondents, especially the officials of the NTPC. It is also seen from the records that though the petitioners alleged that there is a fraud of Rs.2000-3000 Crores on the ground that certain persons, who are encroachers, have been granted compensation, the learned counsel for the NTPC would draw the attention of the Court to the provisions of the resettlement policy, whereby and whereunder compensation to those persons who might not have lost their lands recorded in their name, but when there is a loss of livelihood, a compensation can be given. In any case, the F.I.R. has been lodged and the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate would submit before us that they have examined the F.I.R. and they have found predicate offences are alleged in the F.I.R. and they are making a preliminary enquiry to the same. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no point in referring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation. 11) Learned Senior Advocate for the NTPC would further states that the total amount of compensation is Rs. 10 Crores (Rupees Ten Crores) and the petitioners have inflated the figures in the petition. 12) In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the Public Interest Litigation and dismiss the same with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be paid by the petitioner No.1 for the simple reason that he suppressed material facts before us. The costs shall be deposited in the coffers of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority within 30 days hence, failing which it shall be recovered from him by resorting to the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. 13) Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. 14) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.