The court emphasized the necessity for petitioners in Public Interest Litigations to disclose their credentials to establish genuine public interest and discourage frivolous filings.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Dipan A. Desai, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Sankul K. Kabra, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Gursharan H. Virk, learned Government Pleader appearing with Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.

2. The present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by three persons, amongst whom the petitioner no.1 stated to be a resident of District Mehsana and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are residents of District Ahmedabad.

3. The complaint in the Public Interest Litigation is against the respondent no.4, which is a School located in the City of Ahmedabad affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education.

4. At the outset, we may note that it is difficult for us to comprehend as to how the petitioners residing in two different districts of the State came together to file the present Public Interest Litigation. Moreover, the petitioners have not disclosed their job, occupations, i.e. their credentials so as to enable the court to ascertain their motive for filing of the present public interest litigation, raising allegations against a private school, located in Ahmedabad, impleaded as respondent no.4.

5. The only statements made in paragraph–‘1 & 2’ of the writ petition is that the petitioners are ordinary citizens of India and that the petitioners are filing the writ petition in general public interest and the interest of all school going students, which cannot be said to be the statements of disclosure of the credentials of the petitioners and nothing, in our opinion, will turn on the said statements.

6. As per the rules framed by the High Court, for the presentation of the Public Interest Litigation, the first and foremost requirement for the petitioner(s) is to disclose his/their credentials so as to enable the Court to find out the purpose, motive or aim of the person invoking the public interest litigation jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Further, the allegations in the writ petition against the private school impleaded as respondent no.4 are that it is conducting coaching classes for entrance examinations within the school premises and the prayer is to conduct an inquiry/ investigation, inasmuch as, the action of the school in running coaching classes inside the school premises, is contrary to the Affiliation bye-laws framed by the Central Board of Secondary Education.

8. We are of the considered view that simply for the reason that the petitioners have not disclosed their credentials and it is also not disclosed as to how three petitioners living at two different places in the State of Gujarat had joined together, the present public interest litigation cannot be entertained, being in violation of the Rules framed by the High Court for maintaining Public Interest Litigation.

9. However, we may also record that a different set of persons had earlier filed a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation namely Writ Petition (PIL) No.4 of 2026, with the same allegations against the same school, impleaded as respondent no.4 herein. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this court while noticing that the petitioners therein had not disclosed their credentials, vide judgment and order dated 27.01.2026 while granting liberty to the said petitioners. The statement made by the petitioners herein in paragraph–‘7’ of the present writ petition is that:-

“7. That to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners, writ petition (PIL) No.4 of 2026 had been filed raising a similar issue before