APHC010228932023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 69 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-23 [3552] Pesingi Nagababu ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Murthy, Sr. Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Ponnada Sree Vyas Advocates for Respondents : GP for Revenue CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 3rd September 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present petition has been filed purportedly in public interest to highlight the irregularities in allocating the house site pattas in Sy.Nos.467/1 and 472 in Polekurru Village of Kakinada District. 2. The petitioner claims that the house site pattas are in regard to the land which is low lying, water flooded and unfit for construction. The allotment of land which was submerged with water is stated to be in violation of the layout rules. It is submitted that the permissions from Godavari Urban Development Authority (GUDA) for the formation of the layout were not obtained. 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.P.(PIL) No.69 of 2023 3. However, from the averments made in the petition, it can be seen that the petitioner also claims that he was issued a house site patta in Sy.No.467/1 of Polekurru Village of Kakinada District and that which, according to him, could not be utilized by the petitioner as it was not fit for construction and required leveling of the land in question. The petitioner, therefore, clearly has a personal interest in the matter and is aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the official respondents in not making the allotted land for construction which required either filling or leveling. 4. Time and again, the Apex Court, in a plethora of judgments, has reiterated the need to exercise care and caution while entertaining petitions purportedly filed in public interest inasmuch as the process of the Court was being blatantly abused by filing petitions with oblique motives. 4.1. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1 , 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. 1 (1992) 4 SCC 305 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.P.(PIL) No.69 of 2023 4.2. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra2, 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. 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 same was reiterated in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Others3. 2 2005 (1) SCC 590 4 HCJ & CGRJ W.P.(PIL) No.69 of 2023 5. The present petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 3 2007 (14) SCC 281 5 HCJ & CGRJ W.P.(PIL) No.69 of 2023 255 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.P.(PIL) No.69 of 2023 Dt: 03.09.2025 kbs