He said notice at this stage would open a larger issue relating to the use of public land and made a selective reference to Teen Murti Bhavan in the capital saying the land itself cost over Rs 500 crore.

However, the Bench was unmoved and said "whatever you have to say you can say it in the reply".

It reminded Mishra that it has only noted the allegations in the PIL which said "hundreds of crores of rupees" meant for developmental work were being used by the UP Government for personal glorification of leaders and installing their statues.

Before Mishra, senior advocate U U Lalit, appearing for the state goverment, contended that it was not the case for issuance of notice as the apex court in the past had passed orders in favour of the state government on the same issue which the petitioners are not aware.

Lalit was responding to the Bench which wanted to know from him whether he would like to file a reply to the PIL.

He said the issue has been going on for the past two years and "every single expenditure has been approved by the House (State Assembly).