( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions stated to have filed in public interest involve identical questions and therefore, are taken up for disposal together.

( 2 ) GRIEVANCE in each case is that contracts of respondent No. 2 Anil Kumar in CW 2192/2000 and Vikramjit Singh respondent No. 2 in CW 2193/2000 entered into with respondent No. 1 Delhi Vidyut Board (in short, the Board) are without authority of law and have to be revoked. Instead contract should be entered into with petitioners.

( 3 ) THE prayers each of in the writ petitions are as follows:

(I) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1 to appoint the petitioner as authorized contractor immediately; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to revoke/cancel the contract of respondent, the same being void and also direct the respondents not to refund the security deposited by respondent No. 2 as the same has been collected from the petitioners by respondent No. 2 and the same be adjusted in the account of the petitioners; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the CBI to register a case for swindling of petitioner s money by the concerned employees of the respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3; (iv) issue such other and further orders or directions as this Hon ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

( 4 ) THE case of petitioners is that a scheme was introduced by the Board for providing electric connection to dwellers of J. J. cluster in R. K. Puram, area, New Delhi, (subject matter of CW 2193 of 2000 and JJ cluster at Vasant Vihar, near "d" Block (subject matter of CW 2192 of 2000 ). Originally a scheme for electrification of J. J. clusters was announced. But it was subsequently withdrawn and a new scheme for electrification of JJ clusters was announced. Petitioners in each case applied for the same. Demands were raised by the Board and petitioners deposited requisite amounts. Agreements were also executed between the petitioners and the Board. Subsequently, agreements were entered into with respondent No. 2 in each case. It is the case of petitioners that malafides are involved and subsequent contracts were illegal. Petitioners should have been given priority and contracts should be entered into with them. With the aforesaid grievances the writ petitions have been filed with prayer as noted above.

( 5 ) WHEN there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issues involved in the present cases, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "political interest litigation". There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and it cannot be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by apex Court in The Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary and Others, AIR 1993 SC 892 and Kazi Landup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean hand, clean mind and clean ob