Why did the high court hold that the PIL was not in public interest? Answering that question, the bench said the petitioner's own conduct belied his claim of acting in public interest. Although the petitioner had described himself as a social activist engaged in public welfare activities, court found that he had deliberately omitted to disclose that he was an advocate. While one writ petition had been withdrawn, another remained pending before the high court. The present PIL, court observed, was filed during the court's vacation while claiming urgency, apparently in an attempt to obtain an order despite the pendency of the writ proceedings.