Public interest litigations should not be filed for personal gain, private profit, or extraneous considerations, and should be aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or injury.

1. This writ petition, professed to be in public interest, seeks to question the decision of the Government relating to construction of a bridge over River Jhelum near the Presentation Convent School, Rajbagh. The credentials of the petitioners and the cause in the name of public interest sought to be pleaded by them need to be stated. As per the averments made in the petition, petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate; petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are teachers and petitioner No. 5 a writer and social activist. They claim to be conscientious citizens interested in issues of development and environment. It is stated that in the present petition they have nothing to gain, as they are not seeking enforcement of their personal rights; they are pursuing different professions. Their case is that the proposed/intended action of the respondents, i.e., construction of the bridge over river Jhelum, being contrary to public interest, adversely affects the environment, norms of school, security of children etc. According to them, these primary issues concern the public in general and particularly of those residing within the Municipal limits of the City of Srinagar. It is averred that the decision to construct the bridge is actuated by considerations other than public convenience or decongestion of traffic and that there are powerful/influential persons who stand to benefit by the proposed construction as they need access to their commercial establishments which have been set up in Raj Bagh area, which is a declared residential area it is also stated that the proposed/intended action is not supported by the Master Plan sanctioned for the City of Srinagar, and that the decision is arbitrary, contrary to norms of development and, above all, to law regulating the planned development of the City. It is averred that the writ petition is filed by them in public interest seeking intervention of this Court to judicially review the intended/proposed action of the respondents.

2. Petitioners, in paragraph 2(i) to 2(vi) of the writ petition, have delineated the efforts stated to have been taken by them, before filing the present writ petition, to dissuade the Government from proceeding ahead with the proposed construction. In order to demonstrate the real interest of the petitioners in filing the present writ petition, it would be apt to reproduce hereunder paragraphs 2(i) and 2(vi) hereunder:

"(i) The petitioners and various other parents of the children who are studying in Presentation Convent School called on the then Minister of State (Home) on 2.6.2012 urging him to prevent the construction of the bridge in the interest of the security of the children and to prevent likelihood of crime being committed against the children. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Minister did not agree to the submissions.

(vi) That on 13.10.2012 about 100 students were invited by the Hon'ble Governor to Raj Bhawan. The students of IX Class alongwith few staff members and the Principal of the School visited the Raj Bhawan. The students also appealed His Excellency to prevent construction of the bridge next to their school."

In paragraphs 3(a) to 3(p), the petitioners have made mention of some newspaper reports and write ups of a few individuals wherein they have spoken against construction of the bridge in question. If anything material and substantial is highlighted by the submissions made therein that is that the proposal to construct the bridge had been finalized way back in nineteen eighties. It is stated that the proposal was resisted by the establishment at that point of time. In paragraph 4 of the petition, it is stated that a memorandum was submitted to his Excellency the Governor by the students of the aforesaid School on 13.10.2012. In the very same paragraph, the petitioners have also stated that they have been able to lay their hands on the brochure prepared by the Public Works Department regarding the new bridge. The petitioners have also outlined the reasons, as con