ORDER : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J. 1. Three petitioners have joined in the present petition filed in the name of public interest litigation calling in question legality and validity of transfer of subject land by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent No. 2. The petitioners have also questioned subdivision of subject plot and conversion of use of subject plot from educational to commercial by Respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners, giving their particulars in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the petition, claim to be a society and have made declaration and undertaking that there is no personal interest involved and the petition is being filed for the interest of the public at large for espousing the cause of education. 3. According to the petitioners, a plot bearing number J-1 situated in Ambedkar Nagar Scheme, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject plot’) was auctioned in the year 2007 and Respondent No. 1-M/s. Vocational Education Trust emerged as highest bidder. According to the petitioners, even though Respondent No. 1 had not made full payment, no action was taken. Further, Respondent No. 1 did not raise any construction to establish educational institution. The petitioners have questioned the action of Respondent No. 1 in selling out the subject plot in favour of Respondent No. 2 on the allegation that the subject plot was sold to Respondent No. 2 who intended to raise a housing project. According to the petitioners, request made for subdivision of the subject plot could not be allowed. Allegation of the petitioners is that the official respondents not only allowed subdivision of the subject plot but, later on, the petitioners came to know that the land use has also been permitted to be changed from educational to commercial, which according to the petitioners is under the influence of Respondent No. 3, who is a local Member of Legislative Assembly(MLA). It is alleged that under his influence, the official respondents have gone out of way, not only allowing subdivision of the subject plot but also not raising any objection with regard to sale of the subject plot by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 and the land use has been changed, seriously jeopardising and adversely affecting the interest of the petitioner-society at large in the matter of development of educational institution. It is further submitted that various complaints were made to concerned authorities and objections were also raised from time to time, but no action has been taken because of influence of Respondent No. 3 and, therefore, present petition had to be filed by the petitioners. 4. The respondents have filed their respective replies. As far as official respondents are concerned, they have replied by submitting that though initially the subject land/plot was auctioned in favour of Respondent No. 1, subdivision of subject plot was allowed after due consideration of the application and the same does not violate any provision of law. It has been further submitted that there is no impediment in sale of the subject plot by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 3 too. It is also submitted that not only application for subdivision of subject plot, but also the application for change of land use was duly considered by the highest authorities and after having been satisfied that the change of land use was permissible under the law, permission was granted. According to the official respondents, in the Master Plan, the land is reserved for Ambedkar Nagar Residential Scheme of Respondent No. 4 and the land in question is shown as part of the Ambedkar Nagar Residential Scheme of Respondent No. 4 without showing any particular use and, therefore, application submitted by Respondent No. 2 for grant of permission for change of user of land falls in the category of change of user of land in the layout plan of the Scheme. It has also been highlighted that even after grant of permission for change of user of subdivided plot no. J-1 (Part A) in the Ambedkar Nagar Residential Scheme of Respondent No. 4, apart from other two subdivided plots, i.e. plot no. J-1(Part B) and plot no. J-1(Part C), four more plots are reserved for educational purposes, one each in Block B, Block E, Block G and Block I in the layout plan. According to official respondents, the petitioners have not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts, particularly with regard to availability of other land for educational purposes. It is also submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the minutes of meeting of the Trust held on 28.12.2017 as also letter dated 04.01.2017 sent by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5. 5. It is also submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the minutes of meeting of the Trust held on 28.12.2017 as also letter dated 04.01.2017 sent by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 5. 5. Respondents No. 2 and 3 by filing their reply, apart from replying on merits, have taken serious objection to the bona fides of the petitioners and maintainability of the petition stating that not only subdivision of subject plot but also change of land user was in accordance with law and there was no violation of any of the provisions of law. It has been stated that the petitioners have suppressed many material facts with regard to their individual standing. According to Respondents No. 2 and 3, the petitioners are persons of doubtful integrity and credentials. There are criminal cases pending against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in various litigations and other violations also for which they are facing various proceedings. Statement of fact has been made regarding personal animosity of Petitioner No. 3 against Respondent No. 3 and there is serious political rivalry between them. Therefore, present PIL petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as the petitioners, in order to settle their personal scores and being persons of criminal antecedents and ranked violators of law, have abused and misused the forum of public interest litigation on frivolous issue. 6. It is too settled that forum of public interest litigation is meant only to espouse public cause and such petition can be maintained only by those who do not have any doubtful integrity or any objectionable antecedents. At times, the courts have found that in order to settle personal scores, persons with no credentials misuse and abuse the August forum of PIL. The courts have always come very heavily on those who are found to have misused the forum of PIL to settle their personal scores and also on those who do not enjoy clean reputation and who are otherwise having bad antecedents. 7. Rule 385-F, sub-rule (7) of the Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, 1952 (hereinafter to referred to as ‘the High Court Rules of 1952’) has been framed to ensure that only those who are persons of proper antecedents alone are allowed to invoke forum of PIL in the matter of espousing any public cause. Therefore, various details are required to be furnished. Therefore, various details are required to be furnished. One of them is regarding criminal antecedents. Rule 385-F(7) of the High Court Rules of 1952 reads as under: “385-F. Facts to be disclosed.-A petition filed in public interest shall disclose- (1) ........ (2) ........ (7) as to whether the petitioner, or any of the petitioners when there are more than one, is or has been involved in any other civil, revenue, criminal litigation in any capacity before any Court or Tribunal and if so, complete details of such litigation including the subject matter thereof.” 8. Reply filed by the respondents, particularly Respondents No. 2 and 3 makes startling revelation with regard to credentials of the petitioners. If we look into the petition itself, none of the petitioners has given any details of their background despite a clear provision under the High Court Rules of 1952. Reply filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 disclosed as below: “A. Nilesh Khandelwal (Petitioner No. 3) (i) 44 cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (few disposed-off on the basis of compromise). Details available at Annexure R/2/24 (Page No. 284-285). (ii) In one Criminal Case No. 875/2017 under N.I. Act, Petitioner No. 3 has been inflicted with imprisonment of 6 months alongwith penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, Petitioner No. 3 preferred an Appeal, which was conditionally allowed after deposition of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Details available at Annexure-R/2/26 (Page No. 296-303). (iii) 45 other Criminal Complaints, wherein cognizance has been taken against Petitioner No. 3. List available at Annexure-R/2/27 (Page No. 304-305). (iv) Mr. Mahendra Kumar Jain (Partner of Respondent No. 2) also has filed a Complaint against Petitioner No. 3, wherein concerned Petitioners bail was cancelled and subsequent thereto, he is absconding. Details available at Annexure-R/2/28 (Page no. 306-322). (v) Petitioner No. 3 illegally operating one Hotel Sariska Inn at Charagha Land. The copy of Site Inspection Report dated 18.12.2016 disclosing the same is at Annexure-R/2/33 (Page No. 358-361). (vi) An FIR No. 1199/2016 dated 03.09.2016 was registered against the Petitioner No. 1 and 3 under Section 465-471 I.P.C., wherein charge-sheet was filed on 21.12.2016. Though petitioners have been discharged by way of Order dated 08.09.2020. A Criminal Appeal is pending in the matter. Details are available at Annexure-R/2/34 & R/2/35 (Page No. 362-375, 376-385 respectively). (vi) An FIR No. 1199/2016 dated 03.09.2016 was registered against the Petitioner No. 1 and 3 under Section 465-471 I.P.C., wherein charge-sheet was filed on 21.12.2016. Though petitioners have been discharged by way of Order dated 08.09.2020. A Criminal Appeal is pending in the matter. Details are available at Annexure-R/2/34 & R/2/35 (Page No. 362-375, 376-385 respectively). (vii) Recently, one FIR No. 761/2022, dated 13.10.2022 has been registered against Petitioner No. 3 at Alwar under section 323, 341, 451 and 506 IPC by Sh. Hariom Gupta. A copy of FIR No. 761/2022 dated 13.10.2022 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/2. (viii) Petitioner No. 3 have Plot No. I-1 and I-45 in the same locality, where he is undertaking commercial activities without getting land use changed. UIT, Alwar issued Notice dated 11.1.2017 (Anx R/2/6). As per reply to a Civil Suit filed at Annexure R/2/32, he has projected himself as Owner of the Plot, however, as per Allotment Letter dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure R/2/29) Wife of Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Sunita Gupta is the owner. Whereas, in Rejoinder at Para No. 6, he submitted that Plot No. I-45 is not owned by him. The offence of perjury either has been committed by Petitioner No. 3 before this Hon’ble Court or either before the Civil Court, which is a criminal offence. B. Hemant Jaiman (Petitioner No. 2) (i) Numerous Criminal Complaints were filed against Petitioner No. 2 for causing nuisance and illegal actions at ‘Naya Bhurasidha Hanuman Mandir’ at Benami Community Ashram Jaipur Road, Alwar. A Copy of few such complaints are marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/3. (ii) FIR No. 586/2012, dated 02.11.2012 at P.S. Sadar, Alwar under Section 341, 327 IPC. A Copy of FIR No. 586/2012 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/4. (iii) FIR No. 396/2014, dated 03.07.2014 at P.S. Rajgarh Alwar under Section 323/354/379 IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of SC/ST Atrocities Act. A Copy of FIR No. 396/2014 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/5. (iv) FIR No. 373/2015, dated 08.09.2015 at P.S. Aravali Vihar, Alwar under Section 323/341/379 IPC. A Copy of FIR No. 373/2015 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/6. (v) FIR No. 179/2017, dated 28.04.2017 at P.S. Aravali Vihar, Alwar under Section 323/341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A Copy of FIR No. 179/2017 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/7. A Copy of FIR No. 373/2015 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/6. (v) FIR No. 179/2017, dated 28.04.2017 at P.S. Aravali Vihar, Alwar under Section 323/341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A Copy of FIR No. 179/2017 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/7. (vi) FIR No. 467/2018, dated 23.10.2018 at P.S. Aravali Vihar, Alwar under Section 420/447/465/471/120B IPC. A Copy of FIR No. 467/2018 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/8. (vii) In the year 2015, Criminal Proceedings U/s. 500 CrPC was initiated against him for publication of baseless news report against partners of Respondent No. 2 (Firm). However, against the order setting aside the cognizance against him, a Criminal Revision No. 32/2020 has been filed, wherein notices are issued on 29.1.2020. (Annexure R/2/36 Page No. 386). (viii) FIR No. 325/2021, dated 05.06.2021 at P.S. Sadar, Alwar under Section 323/341/506/354(A) IPC. A Copy of FIR No. 325/2021 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/9. Here it is relevant that, the said FIR has been lodged by Sh. Lalit Kumar Sharma, who is brother of Petitioner No. 2. (ix) FIR No. 435/2022, dated 18.05.2022 at P.S. Sadar, Alwar under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC has been filed by brother of Petitioner No. 2. A copy of FIR No. 435/2022 is marked and enclosed as Annexure-RA/10. C. Ved Prakash (Petitioner No. 1), Secretary of Ambedkar Nagar Development Society FIR no. 1199/2016, dated 03.09.2016, P.S. Kotwali, Alwar under Section 465/471 IPC. The Above FIR was registered both against Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 3. Details available at Annexure-R-2/8 (Page No. 231-232). Charge-sheet No. 1532 dated 21.12.2016 has been filed. Details available at Annexure-R-2/9 (Page no. 233-238). Criminal Appeal against the order of discharge dated 08.09.2020 is pending. The detailed submissions about how without informing Complainant, date was pre-poned and necessary correspondences are enclosed as Annexure-R-2/34 and R-2/35 (Page No. 362/385) alongwith reply to rejoinder.” 9. We are shocked that persons of such antecedents, particularly Petitioner No. 3 being political rival of Respondent No. 3, have chosen the forum of PIL. It has been categorically stated in the reply that Petitioner No. 3 has plot no. I-1 and I-45 in the same locality where he is using that areas as commercial without getting land use changed from residential to commercial. It has been categorically stated in the reply that Petitioner No. 3 has plot no. I-1 and I-45 in the same locality where he is using that areas as commercial without getting land use changed from residential to commercial. It is further stated that Petitioner No. 3 has commercial complex for which Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar has issued notice to him. Further revelation made is that in Village Sheodanpur, encroachment on Charagah land and land of Irrigation Department was made by Petitioner No. 3 and he developed a hotel against which notice was issued to him on 11.01.2017 by the Tehsildar and Irrigation Department alleging illegal construction. It is also disclosed in the reply, which was conveniently suppressed by Petitioner No. 3 that he contested Legislative Assembly Elections from Alwar constituency in which he lost whereas Respondent No. 3 was declared elected. Proof of this fact has also been placed on record. As Respondent No. 3, apart from being a politician, is also a businessman and partner in Respondent No. 2-firm, the petitioners, particularly Petitioner No. 3 hatched conspiracy to harass Respondent No. 3 and filed present PIL suppressing material facts. It is also the case of the respondents that though complaints have been made to various fora, but no orders have been passed against any of the respondents by any of the fora. A complaint made to Lokayukta has also been dismissed which fact was informed vide letter dated 25.01.2017. 10. In the rejoinder and affidavits filed by the petitioners after the reply was filed by the respondents, the petitioners have made evasive averments. They have sought to justify various actions and proceedings initiated against them by stating that they have been falsely implicated or some of the cases have been closed or that all the allegations, notices, actions and criminal proceedings are unjustified, uncalled for and frivolous. 11. We are of the view that the petitioners, each of whom had antecedents of bad character which were extremely relevant for this Court to decide whether the issue raised by the petitioners should be allowed to be investigated at their instance, therefore, disclosure thereof was extremely essential. Had the aforesaid background as stated before this Court by the respondents been there in the petition, this Court would have never entertained the petition and dismissed the same with cost. Had the aforesaid background as stated before this Court by the respondents been there in the petition, this Court would have never entertained the petition and dismissed the same with cost. Unfortunately, because of suppression of material facts by the petitioners, much time of this Court has been wasted. Solemn forum of public interest litigation cannot be allowed to be abused by persons like the petitioners who cannot said to be the persons acting in bona fide. They are having questionable antecedents and at their instance, no issue in the name of public interest litigation can be allowed to be raised. Such petitions are liable to be nipped at the bud. One of the petitioners has taken a lame excuse that disclosure of criminal antecedents was not required to be made under the law whereas apart from this being a specific requirement under the High Court Rules of 1952, governing filing of public interest litigation before this Court, it was required to be disclosed. 12. The only inference which can be drawn from the aforesaid facts is that the petitioners deliberately concealed various material facts regarding their bad antecedents with a design to mislead this Court and somehow invoke jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of public interest litigation and stall the project of Respondent No. 2 towards development of residential project. 13. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued caution against entertaining frivolous PILs which are found to be either paisa interest litigation, personal interest litigation or publicity interest litigation. In one of its earlier decisions in the case of K. R. Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand & Others (1994) 6 SCC 620 , it was found that PIL petitioners therein had not come to the Court with clean mind and object. It was held thus: “7. It cannot be forgotten that a writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands, like any other writ petitioner, but must further come with a clean heart, clean mind and a clean objective. We cannot assume that Dr R.M. Premchand, who at the relevant time was a Research Scholar and part and parcel of the University, did not know the regulations whereunder the answer books are destroyed within six months from the examination under formal orders of the functionaries. We cannot assume that Dr R.M. Premchand, who at the relevant time was a Research Scholar and part and parcel of the University, did not know the regulations whereunder the answer books are destroyed within six months from the examination under formal orders of the functionaries. We cannot assume that Dr R.M. Premchand did not know about the destruction of the answer books of Srinivas at the time when he moved the High Court in public interest. If this be our impression Dr R.M Premchand had no locus standi to move the High Court in public interest at that belated point of time.” 14. In the case of The Ramjas Foundation & Others Vs. Union of India & Others AIR 1993 SC 852 , it was held by the Hon’ble Court as below: “7. As regards the objection of the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5A of the Act in not affording an opportunity of personal hearing while deciding such objections, we granted an opportunity to the Learned Additional Solicitor General to place material after examining the original record. We granted this opportunity to the respondents on account of the reason that the writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court in limine without issuing notice to the respondents and as such the respondents had not been given any opportunity before the High Court to place any material to refute the allegations made by the appellants in this regard. The Additional Solicitor General during the course of the hearing of the matter placed an order of the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi dated 23-2-1968 which has been taken on record and for the purposes of identification has been marked as Annexure 'X'. A copy of the said Annexure 'X' was also given to the Learned counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 22-3-1968 clearly shows that the Ramjas Foundation Society was represented through Sh. Ratan Lal Gupta, Advocate who was given a personal hearing. From a perusal of the aforesaid document Annexure 'X' dated 23-2-1968 it is clear that full opportunity of hearing through counsel was afforded to the Ramjas Foundation. It has been further mentioned in this order that the Ramjas Foundation Society was also allowed to file fresh objections if so desired, but Sh. From a perusal of the aforesaid document Annexure 'X' dated 23-2-1968 it is clear that full opportunity of hearing through counsel was afforded to the Ramjas Foundation. It has been further mentioned in this order that the Ramjas Foundation Society was also allowed to file fresh objections if so desired, but Sh. Ratan Lal Gupta, Learned Advocate for the petitioner society declined and stated that there was nothing more to add in the previous objection petition. After bringing the said document Annexure 'X' to the notice of the Learned counsel for the appellants, no satisfactory explanation or argument came forward on behalf of the appellants. The conduct of the appellants in raising the plea that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellants in respect of the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act was totally baseless and factually incorrect and such conduct is reprehensible. It is well settled that a person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts. The objection regarding not affording an opportunity of personal hearing in respect of objections filed under Section 5A of the Act was one of the main planks of the grounds raised in the writ petition as well as in the Special Leave Petition filed before this Court and ought we know if such ground had not been taken this Court would have entertained this appeal or not. The appellants have taken the advantage of obtaining the stay order also from this Court which is continuing for the last 14 years as the Special Leave Petition was filed in 1978 itself.” 15. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349 , Their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned against misuse and abuse of PIL forum. It was observed as below: “14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. It was observed as below: “14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. The masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.” 16. In the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 , suppression of facts was made a basis to refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the case without entering into the merits of the case. It was held thus: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 17. In the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others (2010) 3 SCC 402 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court again came across abuse of the process of law, particularly PIL forum. Following pertinent observations were made: “181. ..... In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions: (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) 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 and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” 18. As an upshot of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that forum of PIL has been grossly abused and misused by the petitioners to settle their personal scores who are persons of bad antecedents and cannot be said to be persons of clean character and unblemished record that at their instance, the issue raised in the petition should be enquired into or decision be rendered on merits. Therefore, we refrain from commenting on the merits of the case. 19. Present petition, being abuse of process of law, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) to be payable by the petitioners to Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month.