PIL motivated by personal malice or private grudge is not maintainable under Article 226.

The petitioner, a political commentator and activist, filed a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a CBI investigation into the conduct of the 4th Respondent, an IPS officer serving as Director of the DVAC.

The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in Varsha Sharma v. Additional Chief Secretary, where the same officer was censured for passing an arbitrary preventive detention order for "extraneous reasons".

The court noted that the petitioner himself had previously been detained by the same 4th Respondent and had made serious personal allegations against him in prior proceedings.

1. Whether the petitioner has the requisite locus standi to maintain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the 4th Respondent given their personal adversarial history.

2. Whether the petition constitutes a bona fide attempt to protect public interest or is driven by personal malice and vendetta.

The Court applied the principles governing Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing that such petitions must be filed by bona fide litigants and not for personal gain or private profit.

The court relied on S.P. Gupta v. Union of India regarding the requirement of sufficient interest and bona fides for judicial redress.

The court cited Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, which establish that PILs used as a "camouflage" to settle personal scores or to release vendetta must be rejected at the threshold.

While acknowledging the 4th Respondent had been previously censured in separate proceedings, the Court observed that the petitioner is in a personal adversarial relationship with the officer.

Specifically, the judgment in Varsha Sharma (relied upon by the petitioner) explicitly mentioned the petitioner's prior campaigns and serious financial allegations against the 4th Respondent.

The Court reasoned that because the petitioner has a documented personal grievance and "hostile backdrop" with the target of the litigation, his motives are not purely public-spirited.

Consequently, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court cannot be "weaponized" for personal vendettas, regardless of the substance of the allegations against the official.

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to the petitioner's lack of locus standi rooted in personal animosity. No costs were awarded.