ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed a Public Interest Litigation being aggrieved of the fact that the administrative authorities are not performing the statutory duty by-passing the statutory rules enshrined under the provision of M.P. CCS (CCA) Rules, 1966.

2. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen of the country and is a permanent resident of city of Indore. He is a Journalist by profession and is pursuing law course in the city of Indore. It has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that Incharge Officer posted as the Chief Superintendent, Fire Services has been issued with the chargsheet laying out charges of misconduct and in furtherance reviewing of the order of the similarly placed authorities and threatening the lower rank officer in the department with dire consequences in case they do not abide by the irregular and arbitrary orders issued by the delinquent officer namely Shri Ram Singh Nignwal.

3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

1 . That independent inquiry into the allegations levelled in the chargsheet issued to Shri Ram Singh Ningwal should be conducted without any undue influence and in accordance with law.

2. That till the pendency of the inquiry the delinquent of icer should be removed/transferred/suspended from the post till the investigation is completed and inquiry is completed.

3. To direct the department to act in accordance with the statutory provisions of Rules made by the State Legislature and to conduct the inquiry with all fairness and legality.

4. To allow the petition with costs.

5 . That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other reliefs, if deems fit in the present facts and circumstances.

4. At the outset, Shri Anand Soni, learned Addnl Advocate General and Shri Arpit Oswal, learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that this public interest litigation is not maintainable, since the issue relates to service matter and as held by the apex Court in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273, wherein it has been held that "in service matters, PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the so called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction , often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PIL, official documents are being annexed without indicating as to how petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession, It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity, the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such case would get exposed to find out whether it was the bonafide venture. Whenever, such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petition, but also to impose exemplary cost as it prima-facie gives impression of oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the Court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motives do not have approval of the Courts".

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition has been filed only wi