(1) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard Mr. Srimani for the State. The challenge herein is to the transfer of policemen from various Districts. It has been stated by Mr. Srimani that on the same issue this Court has already dismissed the writ petition being W. P. No.2311 (W) of 2009 on 13th February, 2009 after noticing number of judgments of the Supreme Court.

(2) We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel. Repeatedly law has been laid down by the Supreme Court that it is incumbent on the High Court to satisfy itself with regard to the bona fides of the writ petition. It is also necessary for the High Court to ensure that frivolous and vexatious public interest writ petitions are not entertained specially at the instance of the petitioners which fail to establish the necessary credentials for espousing the cause in public interest. In the present case, the petitioners claim to be Asian Front of Human Rights. It claims to be a registered organization. Its stated functions are "to look after the safety, security and convenience of the public and give necessary assistance in the event of violation of human rights." The petitioners claim to have fought for the cause of the people on several occasions by making representations to the police authorities, statutory bodies and other institutions as well as by filing public interest litigation petitions. The immediate cause for the filing of the writ petition as stated in Paragraph-5 of the writ petition is that people of Santipur town, Chapra, Gagnapur and Nakashipara of Nadia District met the Secretary of the Society, i.e., petitioner No.2 and made a representation that the police authorities are not looking into their grievances and are not taking any steps for preventing the breach of peace solely for the reasons that they will be transferred outside the District of Nadia by 28th February, 2009. It is not disputed before us by the learned Counsel Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioners that all the transfers have actually been effected. The mobilization of police personnel from one station to another has been completed. This writ petition, it is stated, has been filed only to ensure that the grievances of the individual police officers are duly considered by the competent authority, i.e., the Chief Electoral Officer. It is also submitted before us by the learned Counsel that pending criminal cases are not being investigated due to the transfer.

(3) Mr. Srimani has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have failed to establish their locus standi. The petitioner No.1 is a purely voluntary organization and solicits representations from the locality just to justify its existence. The writ petition has been filed only to justify its continuance as an N.G.O. It has no legal authority to take up the cause of the transferred police personnel. Individual remedies are available to any aggrieved Police Official.

(4) We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We are not satisfied with the bona fides of the writ petitioner in filing the present writ petition, nor are we satisfied with the locus standi of the writ petitioner in filing the writ petition. A perusal of the petition shows that petitioners have given no details as to:-(i) With whom the petitioners are registered; (ii) For what purposes is it registered; (iii) What is the legal status of such a registration; (iv) What is the administrative set up of the petitioners; (v) Who provides the finances; (vi) What other social causes related to the protection of the Fundamental Rights of poor or the deprived sections of the society have been espoused by the petitioners.

(5) That apart we are unable to rule out the possibility that the writ petition may have been filed for ulterior motives, given the proximity of the Parliamentary Elections. The writ petition could also be filed at the behest of som