IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1 OF 2010 SHRI SUKUMAR YALGONDA KAMBLE .. PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V. P. Patil for the petitioner Mr. P. A. Pal, PP Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni for R-3 & 4. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED: 24th June, 2010 P.C. In pursuance of the policy of the State Government to encourage societies of persons belonging to backward classes to do business, the State of Maharashtra has come out with various schemes to provide financial assistance to such societies. The State of Maharashtra has issued several G.Rs. in that connection for giving financial assistance to such societies. In this petition the petitioner has impleaded some such societies. They are respondents 2,3 and 4. The petitioner claims that the petition is filed in the public interest. It is the petitioner’s grievance inter alia that though financial assistance has been given to respondents 2, 3 and 4 plants have not been set up, machineries have not been bought and the monies advanced by the State of Maharashtra have been siphoned off. 2. A detailed affidavit has been filed by respondent 1 (g) Shri Bajirao Patil, Special District Social Welfare Officer, Kolhapur, in which the averments made in the petition are denied. It is inter alia stated that monies have been well utilized, factories have been set up and production has started. A chart is annexed to the affidavit stating how the monies have been spent. Certain photographs are also annexed to the affidavit in support of the above contentions. 3. In State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 (1) SLR 581, the Supreme Court has issued certain directions to preserve the purity and sanctity of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court has inter alia stated that the courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations; that the court should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL; that the court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL; that the court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition; that the court should ensure that the the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury; that the court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the PIL and the court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives are discouraged by imposing exemplary costs. 4. We must note that in the petition the petitioner has merely stated that he is an Indian citizen and is a social worker. Apart from this, he has not given any particulars about himself. He has not stated as to what social work he is doing. We must note that the petition does not disclose the credentials of the petitioner. Besides a detailed affidavit has been filed controverting each and every allegation made in the petition. The petition, therefore, involves, disputed questions of facts which, we may not be able to deal with in our writ jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, if funds advanced by the State Government to societies formed by persons belonging to backward classes to enable them to set up factories, are misused that would have to be taken note of. But after reading the affidavit-in-reply, after perusing the annexures thereto, after seeing the photographs and particularly having regard to some of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal’s case, it is not possible for us to come to any final conclusion about the correctness of the allegations because disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into by us in writ jurisdiction. It is, therefore, not possible for us to entertain this petition. It would be, however, open for persons who claim that they are aggrieved by the alleged misappropriation or siphoning off of the funds to approach appropriate forum by adopting such remedy as may be open to them in law, if they so desire. Needless to say that, if such remedy is adopted the forum seized of the proceedings will deal with it in accordance with law independently. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the credentials of the petitioner. We also make it clear that on the merits of the petitioner’s grievance, we have expressed no opinion either way. We may also not be understood as having given liberty to anyone to file any proceedings. 5. Petition is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)