JUDGMENT DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. - The present petition challenging inter alia appointment of respondent No.5 as Standing Counsel in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, came up before learned single Judge, whovide his order, dtd. 31/1/2024, observed that the petition was in the form of a Public Interest Litigation and accordingly directed the matter to be posted before an appropriate Bench of this Court. The petitioner appearing in person is an Advocate by profession. The present petition has been preferred challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in Andhra region (excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam) in the High Court. The appointment of respondent No.5 is stated to be contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, 2000, and guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal.2016) 6 SCC 1 It is stated that respondent No.5 is not a regular practitioner at the High Court of A.P. and has not regularly been representing cases in this Court. It is stated that he cannot argue cases and does not have a good track record of exceptional performance, which would justify his appointment for a third term. Allegations have been reiterated regarding his inefficiency. Allegations have also been levelled against respondent No.5 which have the effect of tarnishing his reputation and integrity. It is further stated that respondent No.5 was earlier appointed for two terms 2004 -11 as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations for appearance in the Tribunal. Subsequently, it is stated, he was appointed as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the Andhra region (excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Rt.No.201, dtd. 2/8/2019 and further that his tenure has been extended recently vide G.O.Rt.No.234, dtd. 9/9/2022. This, according to the petitioner, is impermissible, as he already served for nine years and got another term of appointment for three years, which was thus contrary to the instructions on this subject. It is stated that the appointment of respondent No.5 as counsel, effected vide G.O.Rt.No.201, dtd. 2/8/2019, was challenged in W.P. No.20349 of 2019 by an advocate, as a party-in- person. It is stated that the appointment of respondent No.5 as counsel, effected vide G.O.Rt.No.201, dtd. 2/8/2019, was challenged in W.P. No.20349 of 2019 by an advocate, as a party-in- person. It is stated that while the petition was pending adjudication, the said Advocate was appointed as Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'APSRTC') and that subsequently the case was dismissed for non-appearance of the said Advocate. It is stated that this was nothing but a case of a quid pro quo. What is further stated in para No.10 is reproduced hereunder: "10...........When the appointment for the third term itself is in utter violation and disregard of law and was made controversial, his appointment and recommendation for appointment in the very same post for the fourth term are creating suspicion of corrupt practice for personal gains for Respondent No.4. So inquiry has to be conducted on both Respondents No.4 and 5 by an independent investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (for short C.B.I.) as per Apex Court Judgment in State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 ." The petitioner appearing in person, in the light of the aforementioned facts, would urge that not only the selection process but also the appointment of respondent No.5 was unjust and arbitrary and in clear violation of clause 7 and 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, 2000, framed by the Government and therefore, in the above circumstances, prayed for setting the operation of G.O.Rt.No.234, dtd. 9/9/2022, and as also prayed for a mandamus to respondent No.6 - the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct inquiry into the illegal activities conducted by respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. During the course of hearing the matter, it was admitted by the petitioner appearing in person that he had been engaged as a Law Officer to appear on behalf of the Government, but his services were terminated midway and all this happened while respondent No.4 was at the helm of affairs. It was also not denied by the petitioner that two other petitions have since been filed by him against two other Law Officers appointed by the State, which are pending before various Benches. 3. It was also not denied by the petitioner that two other petitions have since been filed by him against two other Law Officers appointed by the State, which are pending before various Benches. 3. While the petitioner has made an assertion in the petition that respondent No.5 was appointed as a Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations for two terms from 2004-11 in the Tribunal, no such material has been placed on record except two G.Os bearing G.O. Rt.No.201, dtd. 2/8/2019 and G.O.Rt.No.234, dtd. 9/9/2022, whereby respondent No.5 was appointed as Standing Counsel to represent Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the High Court. The assertion made in the writ petition that this was the fourth term being enjoyed by the respondent No.5, therefore, does not get any support from the material placed on record. The petitioner also alleges in the petition that an investigation by the C.B.I. is required, to go into the appointment of respondent No.5 for the fourth time, as, in his personal opinion, suspicions have been created of corrupt practices for personal gains of respondent No.4 on account of some quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is stated to be occasioned on account of appointment of an Advocate as Standing Counsel for APSRTC, who had challenged the earlier appointment of respondent No.5 as such Law Officer. 4. Interestingly, we cannot help but notice that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the counsel who is alleged to be a beneficiary by filing W.P.No.20349 of 2019, in the present petition, neither has he been made as a party respondent in the present case. It appears that the present petition has been filed not on account of any general concern for the public, but somehow to settle scores with respondent No.4, against whom the petitioner seeks a C.B.I. inquiry merely on the ground that he has been instrumental in making recommendation for extension of tenure of respondent No.5 as a Law Officer for the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the High Court. Allegations that respondent No.5 was conducting "broker activities" in the High Court are totally bereft of any material on record. Needless to say that the allegations made against both the respondent No.4 as also respondent No.5 have the effect of severely tarnishing their image and reputation. Allegations that respondent No.5 was conducting "broker activities" in the High Court are totally bereft of any material on record. Needless to say that the allegations made against both the respondent No.4 as also respondent No.5 have the effect of severely tarnishing their image and reputation. This obviously appears to be out of hurt, which the petitioner suffered on account of his term having been curtailed during the tenure of respondent No.4, who was at the helm of affairs at that time. 5. The Apex Court has repeatedly reiterated the need to exercise care and caution while entertaining petitions purportedly filed in public interest inasmuch as the forum of public interest is being blatantly abused by filing petitions with oblique motives. In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India and Ors, (2011) 3 SCC 287 the Apex Court underlined the importance of care and caution that is required to be exercised while entertaining public interest litigations and held that the same should not become a source of abuse of process of law. It was held that the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that no ugly private malice, vested interest for seeking publicity lurks behind such public interest litigation. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 the Apex Court had emphasized that it was only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL alone would have a locus standi and could approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration who could maintain such a petition. It was further held that a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves to be rejected at the threshold. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra, 2005 (1) SCC 590 it is held as under: "12. 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 armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury 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.... 13...... 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; (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. They 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." The aforementioned view was reiterated in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and Others. 2007 (14) SCC 281 . 6. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the ratio of the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the petitioner has a personal score to settle in filing the present petition and has not filed the same out of any genuine public interest. We must express our displeasure at the way in which the petitioner, who happens to be an Advocate by profession, has levelled serious allegations of 'corrupt practice for personal gains' against respondent Nos.4 and 5, which have the effect of tarnishing the image and reputation of the said respondents based only on 'speculation and suspicion'. We must express our displeasure at the way in which the petitioner, who happens to be an Advocate by profession, has levelled serious allegations of 'corrupt practice for personal gains' against respondent Nos.4 and 5, which have the effect of tarnishing the image and reputation of the said respondents based only on 'speculation and suspicion'. Although the Apex Court has time and again said that such a tendency should be curtailed by imposing heavy costs upon petitioners, and in the ordinary course, we would have imposed costs of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 on the petitioner, however, we refrain from doing so only considering the view that the petitioner appearing in person is an Advocate by profession. However, we wish to reproduce herein below the observations made by the Apex Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra (supra) in paragraph No.20 of the judgment wherein it was held: "20. It is disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by the Bar Councils and the Bar Association to see that the process of law is not abused and polluted by its member. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of "Public Interest Litigation". That will be keeping in line with the high traditions of the Bar. No one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession. We would have imposed exemplary cost in this regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court had already imposed costs of Rs.25, 000.00, we do not propose to impose any further cost." For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.