By the Court.—This Public Interest Litigation has been instituted by a person who claims that though he is actually residing at Kavi Nagar in district Ghaziabad but he is actually a native of village Parthala Khanjanpur, Tehsil Sadar in district Guatam Budh Nagar. The relief that has been claimed in this petition is for quashing the Scheme popularly called the ‘Scheme 2014-15 (SPORTS CITY) ‘Scheme’ issued by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ‘NOIDA’ on 7 June 2014 for development of a SPORTS CITY in Sector 150. The second relief that has been claimed is for a direction upon NOIDA to amend its Scheme by inviting tenders after sub-dividing the entire area.

2. It needs to be noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing No. 46506 of 2014 which was dismissed on 10 October 2014 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition after making appropriate disclosure as the petitioner had not made due disclosure as required by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 ‘the Rules’ which were amended in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 AIR SCW 1029.

3. Learned Standing Counsel has made submission on behalf of State of U.P. which has been impleaded as respondent No. 1. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav has made submissions on behalf of respondent No. 2-NOIDA while Sri Anil Divan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ranvir Singh, Ms. Priya Shahdeo, Ms. Madhurima Kapoor and Sri Durgesh Singh has made submissions on behalf of respondent No. 3-M/s. Lotus Green Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Consortium).

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Anil Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. as also by Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that this petition should be dismissed as an important mandatory disclosure that the result of litigation will not lead to any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State has still not been made in this PIL. In support of their contention, learned Senior Counsel have placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Bench No. 4859 of 2010 (PIL), Pankaj Srivastava (P.I.L.) (Civil) v. High Court of Judicature, decided on 23 April, 2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the averments made in paragraph-2 of the writ petition and paragraph 5(c) of the rejoinder-affidavit would make it clear that the necessary disclosures as contemplated by sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules have been made. In fact learned counsel also submitted that a mere disclosure in the petition that the petitioner was a native of a village in district Gautam Budh Nagar where the project was being undertaken is sufficient for maintaining the PIL in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri and others v. Union of India and others, (1981) 1 SCC 568.

6. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents that this public interest litigation should be dismissed for the sole reason that the mandatory requirement as contemplated by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules has not been made needs to be first considered.

7. To appreciate this preliminary objection, it would be appropriate to reproduce sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules which is as follows :

“(3-A). In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this Chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that