A person who moves the Court for judicial redress in cases of public interest litigation must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and not for personal gain or private profit.

( 1 ) ISSUE a writ of Quo Warranto or of Mandamus, the petitioner demands of this Court. Counsel vocally and vociferously pleads petitioner's case to invoke our jurisdiction on Writ Side to serve what he calls a 'public cause'. Public money is being squandered, which must stop. Third respondent is a public functionary, who must not be allowed at public cost, to oblige his friend, the fourth respondent. Appointment of fourth respondent as the Financial Advisor of Gwalior Town and Country Development Authority is challenged in this petition. But, the question is, can we accept petitioner's claim that by this challenge, he is fighting 'public Interest' litigation ?

( 2 ) WE heard counsel for the petitioner at length. We also heard counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents pursuant to the notices issued to them. Returns having also been filed, it presented us no difficulty in disposing of the matter at the threshold. But, the petitioner having agitated question of general importance, we assured counsel that we shall write a reasoned judgement though we had taken the view that the petition merits dismissal at the threshold.

( 3 ) NOW, the facts, there are few, but pregnant. Petitioner admits in his petition that he is an ex-employee of first respondent, Gwalior Town and Country Development Authority, hereinafter the 'authority'. The admitted position also is that third respondent holds the Office of the Chairman of the Authority. The crucial allegation in the petition that the third and fourth respondents are friends is, however, not admitted by the said respondent in their returns. On the other hand, there is a lot written in the returns about petitioner's 'motive'. His bona fides are challenged stating that petitioner was discharged as a result of disciplinary enquiry, held by the fourth respondent and he is now trying to settle scores abusing this Court's process.

( 4 ) BECAUSE the petitioner based his claim on the violation of the Proviso to S. 47 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, the Act) that the fourth respondent's appointment was without prior sanction of the State Government, on behalf of Respondent 2, State of Madhya Pradesh, return is filed to controvert this fact. In the second return at page 11, in sub-para (vi), it is averred that the appointment of fourth respondent was duly approved although no prior sanction of the State Government for such appointment, made in advisory capacity purely on temporary basis, was at all necessary. Indeed, our attention was drawn also to Annex. R/7 of the return filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 3. It is a letter D/-20-3-84 by the second respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh) to the Authority (first respondent) communicating Government's approval of terms and conditions of the appointment of the fourth respondent made by the Authority for a period of six months from 1-11-1983. Our attention was drawn to Annex - H/7 and H/8 of fourth respondent's return which support his claim of the terms of his appointment being further extended. ( 5 ) LET first S. 47 of the Act be extracted on which implicit reliance is placed by the petitioner :"47. Other Officers And Servants. Every Town and Country Development Authority may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties : provided that no post shall be created save with prior sanction of the State Government : provided further that the power of appointment shall be subject to such restrictions as the State Government may, from time to time, impose". Law is well-settled that writ of quo warranto shall not issue against a person who does not hold a public office, created under a statute or the Constitution. Section 47 does not create the post of "financial Advisor". It merely authorises the Authority to "appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for efficient discharge of its duties" though the Provis