1. Petitioners by way of Public interest Litigation have sought for appropriate writ, rule, order or direction commanding the respondent No. 1 to entrust the investigation into the allegations made against the respondent No. 10, Sulabh International, Patna and respondent No. 11, Bindeshwar Pathak, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

2. Petitioners claim themselves to be social workers interested in the welfare of the public at large. According to them, a large scale bungling has been done by the respondent No. 10 with the aid and assistance of the other respondents. The further claim of the petitioners is that the State Government has granted approval for handing over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation but the respondent No. 1 is sitting tight over the matter with the result that no progress has been made in the matter so far. On the other hand, claim of the respondent No. 19 is that this writ petition is not maintainable as Public Interest Litigation as the petitioner No. 1 is Vice-President of Gramina Sauchalaya Sansthan, Patna, which is its competitor in the trade. It is further claimed that in view of growing popularity of the respondent No. 10, several other organisations which are engaged in this trade and are not in a position to compete with it, are making one attempt after other to discredit it by dragging it into unnecessary litigation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that considering the fact that the respondent No. 1 has embezzled and misappropriated public money running into crores of rupees, it is a fit case for directing the respondent No. 1 to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 10 while contesting the claim of the petitioners on merit, contended that this writ petition is not maintainable as Public Interest Litigation. According to him, the petitioners belong to the organisations which are engaged in this trade and are not in a position to compete with the respondent No. 10 and have filed this writ petition to satisfy their personal grudge and enmity.

5. We first propose to consider the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 10 to the maintainability of the writ petition as Public Interest Litigation.

6. As stated above, while the petitioners claim themselves to be social workers having no personal interest in the matter, respondent No. 10 claims that they belong to the organisations which are engaged in this trade and are not in a position to compete with the respondent No. 10.

7. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 10, relevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit are quoted below :"3. That before replying to the paragraphs mentioned in the counter-affidavit the deponent wants to bring to the notice of the Hon ble Court the mala fide nature of the writ petition as well as the previous grudge of the petitioner against the deponent which has culminated in filing of this writ application.4. That the petitioner No. 1 claims to be the "elected Mukhia of the last Gram Panchayat election from Saurath Gram Panchayat". He also states that he is an active social worker attached to various social and other organisation and has been raising demands for enquiries into misuse of public funds. What he has not stated is that this petitioner is also the Vice-President of one organisation, namely the Gramin Shauchalaya Sansthan, Patna, which organisation has for the last several years been actively engaged in maligning and harassing Sulabh International Social Service Organisation and engaged in a war of attrition against it as facts stated hereinafter will show.5. That the petitioner No. 1 in his capacity as the Vice-President of the said Gramin Shauchalaya Sansthan had specifically stated in a letter to the Chief Minister, Government of Bihar that he should b