( 1 ) THE petitioner claiming to be A pro bono public character has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction of the respondent public authorities in not taking appropriate action to stop the Respondent No. 5 from doing illegal quarrying operations in Survey No. 279 and 279/ab which is said to be the Government land situated in Macharaipalli Village, Nallikundur Mandal, Warangal District as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the Respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action to stop illegal quarrying by the Respondent No. 5 in the aforementioned land. On service of notice, the respondent-authorities have filed counter along with W. V. MP. No. 1968 of 1997 seeking vacation of the ex part interim order. In the counter, the official respondents have pointed out that the fifth respondent was granted quarry lease in respect of Survey No. 279. However, the official respondents have not stated whether the land in Survey No. 279/aandb is part of Survey No. 279 or it is a new number given to the original Survey No. 279. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has filed this writ petition without bringing the alleged unauthorised quarrying by the fifth respondent to the notice of the official respondents. The petitioner has chosen to make totally false allegation against the respondents stating an oath that the fifth respondent has been quarrying without obtaining quarry lease from the official respondents.

( 2 ) IT is of utmost importance that those who approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming to be pro bono public characters cannot afford to make reckless and, baseless allegations either against the public authorities or private individuals. Such petitioners owe a duty to the public as well as to the Court that they do not rush to Court without undertaking a research or verification of facts. The Supreme Court in S. P. Anand v. H. D. Deve Gowda, AIR 1997 SC 272 cautioned that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit P. I. L. only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations; the Court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person for any collateral or extraneous consideration. The P. I. L. cannot be a tool in the hands of the unscrupulous to wreak vengeance or grudge against the authorities or private persons. Dealing with a P. I. L. , recently the Division Bench of this Court speaking through my Lord the Chief Justice in K. Prabhakar Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1998 (2) ALT page 1 has defined the parameters to entertain an action brought before the Court as P. I. L. dispensing with the locus standi rule in the following words :"the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is of widest possible amplitude. Public Interest Litigation, the seeds of which were sown in United States more than a century ago has had its due impact in Indian jurisprudence as well, though, however much later and this phenomenon from time to time has had judicial recognition throughout the country and consequently a step forward to sub-serve the ends of justice. The concept of justice ought to be the predominant factor in judicial approach and the law Courts in order to do so have been dealing with matters in a manner and in accordance with the doctrine of natural justice to achieve this end. The usual adversarial litigation is apart of our judicial system but the advent of this phenomenon has been with wide acclamation throughout the country and it is on this count that the Supreme Court right from the beginning however has sounded a caution to the effect that it may not be the act of a busy body or to satisfy individualistic ego or other egoistic social complication. Individual dispute o