Hon’ble D.K. Upadhyaya, J.—The instant writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed with the following reliefs :

“1. to issue a suitable order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 to 6 to punish the opposite party No. 7 and 8 and initiate the criminal proceeding against him in the light of the averments made in this writ petition.

2. to issue a suitable order or direction or writ which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper direct the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 to recover the emoluments and other facilities drawn by the opposite party No. 8 as Minister and Member of the Legislative Council which the opposite party No. 8 has caused to the State Exchequer.

3. to issue a suitable order or direction or writ directing the opposite parties No. 1 to 6 to act positively and quickly in the matter and sent the cheater/opposite party No. 8 behind the bars and refer the matter to the CBI or any other agency which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

4. any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and for protecting the interest of the petitioner may also be awarded to the petitioner and against the opposite parties.”

2. A perusal of the aforequoted prayers made in the writ petition reveal that the petitioner has sought relief for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to punish the opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 and to initiate criminal proceedings against them in the light of averments made in the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed that the emoluments and other facilities drawn from the State Exchequer by the opposite party No. 8 as Minister in the State Government and also as Member of Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh be also ordered to be recovered. The petitioner has further prayed that the matter be referred to CBI or any other agency for inquiry.

3. The allegations made in the writ petition are to the effect that opposite party No. 7, Ram Charan Kushwaha, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad Kushwaha and opposite party No. 8, Babu Singh Kushwaha, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad Kushwaha are one and the same person. That opposite party No. 7, Ram Charan Kushwaha contested the election of U.P. Legislative Council using false name of Babu Singh Kushwaha and after getting elected as member of Legislative Council he got a berth in the Cabinet of the State Government. That the aforesaid act of opposite party No. 7 contesting the election bearing false name is a fraud and hence, authorities be directed to recover the emoluments and other facilities drawn by opposite party No. 7 as Minister in the State and also as Member of Legislative Council.

4. It has further been averred by the petitioner that the opposite party No. 7 by contesting the election in the name of Babu Singh Kushwaha has defrauded the Election Commission and the State of U.P., which is an offence, for which opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 be punished.

5. Heard Sri Surya Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for opposite party No. 1, Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 and Sri Manish Mathur, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4.

6. We have also perused the documents available on record.

While dealing with the issue raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, the Court confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surya Kant with a query as to whether while filing the instant writ petition, the affidavit as required to be filed by a person intending to file Public Interest Litigation under the newly inserted sub-rule 3 A in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 has been filed? On the said query made by the Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not furnish any satisfactory reply. As a matter of fact, in the entire writ petition, no averments regarding the credentials of the petitioner