JUDGMENT :

SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the Land Management Committee-respondent no. 6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

“(i) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondent authorities specially respondent no. 3 to direct the respondent authorities to complete the installation of incomplete bore well and to construct the over head water tank also upon the Gata No. 728 area 0.144 hectare in Mauja Garhi Madusua, Pargana Patiyali, Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah according to the proposal dated 26.06.2023 passed by the authority.

(ii) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondent authority to restrain from shifting the bore well from Gata No. 728 area 0.144 hectare to Gata No. 581 area 0.150 hectare.

(iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

3. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation as the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials and other details that are required under Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952), which has been amended in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, 2010 AIR SCW 1029.

4. Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned Counsel for the Land Management Committee-Respondent No. 6 submits that the present petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner with oblique motive and with concealment of material facts. He further submits that the petitioner has not annexed the resolution dated 26.06.2023 said to have been passed by the Gaon Sabha on the basis of which he is claiming the relief in the present petition.

5. On the question of maintainability of the present petition for want of non-disclosure of the credentials as required under Sub-Rule (3-A), Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, it would be pertinent to note that the aforesaid Rule has been framed in exercise of the Rule making power of the High Court, which is of quasi-legislative nature and has been incorporated as an amendment to Rule 1 of XXII with effect from 01.05.2010 and the validity of the same has been tested and upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Srivastava vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (2014) 3 UPLBEC 1832.

6. For ready reference, the said Rule is reproduced as under:

“(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 spouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State.”

7. In the above-mentioned Rule, the words ‘should precisely and specifically state’ as has been envisaged, itself indicates the importance and necessity of the disclosure of the credentials by the petitioner. The same cannot be ignored/overlooked by the Courts before entertaining a petition as Public Interest Litigation. The said Rule requires a person espousing a public cause, to file an affidavit narrating his credentials in precise and specific manner and also the public cause which is sought to be espoused.

8. The requirement of disclosure of crede