ORDER : Kuldeep Mathur, J. This petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner who is a Municipal Councilor of Municipal Council Nathdwara praying for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that record of the case may kindly be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- i. the allotment so sought to be made in favour of the private body-Tatpadam Upvan Private Limited (respondent No.4) in Khasra No.165 of village Nathuwas and Khasras No.492, 645 and 646 of village Upli Odan for construction of an Amusement Park; and allotment sought to be made in favour of Miraj Developers Limited (respondent No.5) in Khasras No.492, 646, 647 and 648 of revenue village Upli Odan, situated on 120’ road in lieu of amount spent by the said Company for construction of Iconic Gate in Nathdwara may kindly be quashed and set aside; ii. the respondent/State may be further directed to initiate proper enquiry against the local body and to take appropriate action against the erring officials; iii. that all the proceedings drawn in favour of the respondents No.4 and 5 may kindly be quashed and set aside; iv. any other appropriate relief (s) which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner; VI. writ petition of the petitioner be allowed with costs.” 2. Drawing attention of the Court towards the facts as pleaded in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in conformity with the provisions of the Rajasthan Muncipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act of 2009’), the respondent no.5 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Municipal Council, Nathdwara for construction of an Iconic Gate and Model Bus Stand in the city of Nathdwara and in lieu of the amount spent for construction of the aforesaid projects, a piece of land bearing Khasra nos.492, 646, 647 and 648 situated at 120’ road in Revenue Village Upli Odan has been allotted. Learned counsel further urged that the respondent no.4 being a company owned by the Miraj Group was allotted land ad measuring 25 Bighas comprised in Khasra no.165 of Village Nathuwas and Khasra nos.492, 645 and 646 of Village Upli Odan for construction of the biggest Idol of Lord Shiva and an Amusement Park. Learned counsel further urged that the respondent no.4 being a company owned by the Miraj Group was allotted land ad measuring 25 Bighas comprised in Khasra no.165 of Village Nathuwas and Khasra nos.492, 645 and 646 of Village Upli Odan for construction of the biggest Idol of Lord Shiva and an Amusement Park. Though initially, lands in Khasra Nos.3218/490 and 3218/492 were proposed to be allotted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Municipal Council, Nathdwara vide resolutions dated 19.06.2020 and 06.07.2020 had accepted the proposal submitted by the respondent no.4 for the purpose of allotment of 25 Bighas of land at the concessional price i.e. 10% of the reserved price, on which an Idol of Lord Shiva is being constructed, which is in gross violation of ‘Land Allotment Policy – 2015’ which prescribes and provides for the procedure for allotment of public land and the eventualities in which, public land can be allotted at a concessional price. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that till date, no order for allotment of land has been issued in favour of the private respondents but the construction of Shiv Murti/Statue and Recreational Park and the Large Public Park/Amusement Park has already been completed. It was thus prayed that the order of allotment of above mentioned lands made in favour of private respondents be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the petitioner has no locus whatsoever to file the present petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. Learned counsel forcefully contended that in the event of acceptance of the prayers made in the present writ petition, the same would not only cause great damage to the development work in Nathdwara city but would also adversely affect the tourism, recreational and socio-cultural activities in the city of Nathdwara. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the present petition has been filed with oblique motives and is laced with vested interest. It was urged that the petitioner being Councilor of Municipal Council, Nathdwara herself was a part of resolution by circulation meeting dated 19.06.2020 in which she voted in favour of the agenda of allotment of land to private respondents for development of an Amusement Park. It was urged that the petitioner being Councilor of Municipal Council, Nathdwara herself was a part of resolution by circulation meeting dated 19.06.2020 in which she voted in favour of the agenda of allotment of land to private respondents for development of an Amusement Park. Further, she was also part of Municipal Council’s Board meeting dated 03.07.2020 in which, the agenda regarding allotment of land in favour of the private respondents was also considered. 6. It is thus urged that having voted in favour of the allotment of land to the private respondents while being a member of the Municipal Council, Nathdwara in council meeting, the petitioner is now restrained from challenging the said allotment of land in favour of the private respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 7. On merits, it was submitted that the private respondent no.5 submitted its proposal to the Municipal Council, Nathdwara for development, operation and maintenance of Recreational Park and Shiva Idol entirely and exclusively from its own funds (or funds raised from sources other than this project) to promote tourism, recreation, socio-cultural activities on a non-profit basis. The proposal came to be accepted by the Municipal Council and subsequently, by the State Government and thereupon a tripartite MoU dated 17.04.2013 came to be executed between the Municipal Board, Nathdwara, State of Rajasthan and respondent no.5. 8. It was further submitted that for promoting development activities in Nathdwara, an agreement dated 20.09.2013 was entered into between Municipal Council, Nathdwara and respondent no.5 for construction of Bus Terminal and Iconic Gate and it was agreed by Municipal Council, Nathdwara to allot land in favour of the respondent no.5. However, due to certain issues, process of land allotment initiated in favour of the respondent no.5 lapsed and consequently, final location of the land for allotment to the private respondents was changed a couple of times. Further, allotment of the remaining 6970 sqm./75000 sqf. land has been approved by the Municipal Council in its meetings dated 26.12.2022 and 19.05.2023. The same has been confirmed and approved by the State Government vide its allotment letter dated 05.09.2023. Thereupon, construction activities allied to amusement park in conformity with MoU dated 30.09.2022 have commenced. 9. Further, allotment of the remaining 6970 sqm./75000 sqf. land has been approved by the Municipal Council in its meetings dated 26.12.2022 and 19.05.2023. The same has been confirmed and approved by the State Government vide its allotment letter dated 05.09.2023. Thereupon, construction activities allied to amusement park in conformity with MoU dated 30.09.2022 have commenced. 9. Learned counsel contended that the entire exercise of allotment of land has been done by the Municipal Council and the State Government in conformity with the rules and policy as prescribed under the Land Allotment Policy of 2015. Further, the primary aim of allotting land at a concessional price to the private respondents is to serve public purpose while promoting and encouraging tourism, economic development, income generation, bifurcation, internationalisation, etc. in the city of Nathdwara. 10. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the present writ petition (PIL) may be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record. 12. Para nos.5 and 6 of the reply submitted by the Municipal Council, Nathdwara are reproduced below for ready reference:- “5. That the averments contained in Para 4.15 to 4.25 of the Writ Petition (PIL) are not admitted hence denied. At the cost of repetition, it is submitted in this regard that the Municipal Board, vide Resolution by circulation dated 19.06.2020 & 06.07.2020 had considered the application filed by the private respondent - Tatpadam Upvan Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of allotment of 25 Bighas of land for construction of a 100 ft. approach road to the Shiva Statue and development of an Amusement Park for afforestation etc. It is pertinent to submit here that the petitioner Ujjwal Lavti herself is a signatory to both the proceedings dated 16.06.2020 & 06.07.2020. It is further relevant to submit here that both the proceedings have been passed by consent of the signatory members. In such circumstances, it becomes evident that when the proposal for the land in question (land for the purpose of development of Amusement Park) was being considered by the Municipal Board, the petitioner had given her consent for the purpose of the said allotment and had signed the proceedings, wherein it was observed that the land is being allotted for public purpose and development of environment. The petitioner had never made any kind of objection as a Counselor of the respondent- Municipal board while these proposals were being discussed. From a bare perusal of these proceedings and in the present circumstances, it becomes clear that merely on the basis of an afterthought and with oblique motives, the petitioner, after passing of a substantial time period of three years, has approached this Hon'ble Court at this belated stage. When the petition itself has been filed at a belated stage after a period of three years of the consideration of the proposal for allotment of land for the Amusement Park and when the petitioner herself was a signatory as Counsellor to these proceedings, it becomes evident that the instant writ petition is nothing but an afterthought and has been filed with oblique motives. The petitioner has not even bothered to place on record the copies of both these resolutions. Thus, it is humbly submitted on behalf of humble answering respondent - Municipal Board that when the petition itself has been filed with oblique motives and while not disclosing the fact that petitioner was a signatory to these resolutions, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the count of non- disclosure itself. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the captioned petition may be dismissed with heavy costs and no interference may be made in the instant matter as the petitioner herself has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. It is submitted on behalf of humble answering respondent - Municipal Board that vide application dated 22.10.2018, the private respondent Tatpadam Upvan Pvt. Ltd. Had requested the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Nathdwara for the purpose of allotment of land to develop an Amusement Park. In the said application, the private respondent has stated that the aim and objective for the said allotment would be development of tourism, generation of employment, beautification of the town of Nathdwara etc. In furtherance of the said application dated 22.10.2018, another application dated 18.03.2019 was also moved by the private respondent Tatpadam Upvan Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of allotment of 25 Bighas of land for the purpose of establishment of Amusement Park. In furtherance of said applications made by the private respondent, the Commissioner, Municipal Board vide Communication dated 06.12.2019 had sought consent from the Senior Town Planner, Udaipur Zone for the purpose of the said allotment. In furtherance of said applications made by the private respondent, the Commissioner, Municipal Board vide Communication dated 06.12.2019 had sought consent from the Senior Town Planner, Udaipur Zone for the purpose of the said allotment. Vide Communication dated 30.12.2019, the Senior Town Planner gave his consent for the purpose of disposal of the said matter after obtaining permission from the appropriate level. In pursuance of the consent received from the Senior Town Planner and as per the directions received from the DLB, the matter was put up for the purpose of discussion before the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board vide resolution by circulation dated 19.06.2020 (Annex. R/1) & Resolution dated 06.07.2020 (Annex. R/2) took a decision that the matter be sent to the State Government for further proceedings for allotment of land as per the Policy of 2015. Thereafter, vide Communication dated 22.06.2020, the matter was sent to the State Government by the Commissioner, Municipal Board. 6. That in pursuance of the Resolution passed by the Municipal Board, on 29.09.2021, a meeting of the Cabinet Empowered Committee was held, wherein a decision was taken that the land ad measuring 63,250 sq. mts. be allotted to the private respondent subject to the land use change. In pursuance of the same, vide Communication dated 17.12.2021, the Director, Local Bodies made a Communication to the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Nathdwara to apply for land use change and subsequent thereof, a Communication dated 30.12.2021 was issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Nathdwara to the private respondent for the purpose of depositing Rs.60.64 lacs and make an application for the land use change. Subsequently, the private respondent deposited the amount and accordingly, NOC came to be issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Board for depositing the required amount. On 22.02.2022, the private respondent moved an application for the purpose of land use change and in view thereof, on 11.03.2022, the Municipal Board had published and Advertisement seeking objections regarding the change in land use. Pending the approval of the Cabinet Empowered Committee, the private respondent and the answering respondent -Municipal Board entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 30.09.2022. In the said MoU, it was observed that as the proposal of allotment of 25 Bighas of land for the purpose of establishment of Amusement Park etc. Pending the approval of the Cabinet Empowered Committee, the private respondent and the answering respondent -Municipal Board entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 30.09.2022. In the said MoU, it was observed that as the proposal of allotment of 25 Bighas of land for the purpose of establishment of Amusement Park etc. is pending consideration at the level of the State Government, the humble answering respondent - Municipal Board agreed to hand over the said land owned by them to the private respondent in lieu of rental amount of Rs.5 lacs per annum for the purpose of establishment of parking etc. As far as the case of allotment of 6,970 sq mts. land is concerned, the said matter came before the Municipal Board in its meeting dated 26.12.2022. Thereafter, it was put up in the meeting of the Local Empowered Committee held on 17.05.2023, wherein decision was taken to allot the said land to the private respondent for the purpose of development of parking and thereafter, the matter was put up in the meeting of the Municipal Board also and the same resolution was passed in the said meeting as well. Also, vide Communication dated 19.05.2023 addressed by the Commissioner, Municipal Board to the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur, it was informed that the Municipal Board has already taken a decision to allot the said piece of land to the private respondent. Accordingly, the matter was put up before the Cabinet and after their approval vide Communication dated 05.09.2023 made by the Director, Local Bodies to the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Nathdwara, the land admeasuring 6970 sq. mts. has already been allotted to the private respondent Tatpadam Upvan Pvt. Ltd.” 13. This Court finds that petitioner is one of the signatory to the proceedings of the Municipal Council, Nathdwara dated 19.06.2020 and 06.07.2020 wherein the application filed by the private respondents for the purpose of allotment of 25 Bhighas of land for construction of an approach road to the Shiva Statue and development of an amusement park was considered. Being a public representative, it was expected of the petitioner to raise her concern in the meetings of Municipal Council, Nathdwara about the alleged illegalities committed by the Municipal Authorities in handing over the land to private respondents through various MoU(s)/orders. Being a public representative, it was expected of the petitioner to raise her concern in the meetings of Municipal Council, Nathdwara about the alleged illegalities committed by the Municipal Authorities in handing over the land to private respondents through various MoU(s)/orders. However, this Court on a careful scanning of the record file of the case did not find any such objection being raised by her in the meetings of Municipal Council, Nathdwara at the relevant time or thereafter. This Court is also constrained to observe that the lands in question have been handed over to the private respondents and construction activities thereupon have been completed through various MoU(s) and agreements/orders etc. but none of these proceedings/documents have been specifically challenged by the petitioner. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.” reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 while dealing with the issue of growing menace of Public Interest Litigation in the country observed as under:- “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 the 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.” 14. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Balwant Singh Chaufal’ (Supra) clearly suggest that a PIL cannot be allowed to be used as a tool by unscrupulous litigants to serve their vested interest in the garb of public interest. 15. In the present case, this Court is constrained to observe that no material whatsoever is available on record which would indicate that the present petition has been filed in the public interest rather we are inclined to hold that the present petition is gross abuse of process of PIL forum. 16. Accordingly, this petition (PIL) is dismissed. 17. No order as to costs.