The Allahabad High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking direction commanding the respondent authorities to complete the installation of incomplete bore well and to construct the over head water tank in Mauja Garhi Madusua, Pargana Patiyali, Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah according to the proposal dated 26.06.2023 passed by the authority.
A Single Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Bhoopendra Singh.
The 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 overhead 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 the Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”
Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the 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 Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal & others reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029.
Krishna Kant Singh, Counsel for the Land Management Committee-Respondent No 6 submitted that the petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner with oblique motive and with concealment of material facts.
He further submitted 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 petition.
The Court noted that,
On the question of maintainability of the 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 the Court in the case of Pankaj Srivastava versus High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reported in (2014) 3 UPLBEC 1832.
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.
The requirement of disclosure of credentials from the petitioner is indeed necessary to bring on record the complete background of the person who is coming before the Court. This information helps to establish the petitioner’s credibility, locus standi, and his genuineness. Providing credentials also demonstrates that the petitioner has the necessary expertise, knowledge and understanding of the gravity and seriousness involved in the matter. The said information should not be vague and indefinite. The word ‘credentials’ connotes the qualities and the experience of a person that make him suitable for doing a particular job.
The word ‘credential’ has a specific connotation and meaning. It has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition as “1. A document or other evidence that proves one’s authority or expertise. 2. A testimonial that a person is entitled to credit or to the right to exercise official power. 3. The letter of credence given to an ambassador or other representative of a foreign country. 4. Parliamentary law. Evidence of a delegate’s entitlement to be seated and voted in a convention or other deliberative assembly.”
Moreover, the Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary, 2nd Edition, explains credentials as the quality which makes a person perfect for the job or a document that is a proof that he has the training and education necessary to prove that he is a person qualified for doing the particular job.
The Court said that,
Time and again, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines to the Courts entertaining the Public Interest Litigations to be extra cautious to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the Court and further to see that in the guise of redressing a public grievance, the public interest litigation must not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.
The Apex Court as well as the Court in a catena of judgments has reiterated the importance of the public interest litigation but with certain reservations. The jurisdiction of the public interest litigation is exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The said jurisdiction has been carved out by judicial creativity. However, the courts while exercising this jurisdiction must exercise the same with extreme caution and responsibility.
“In the petition that has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation; all that is brought to the fore is that the petitioner is raising an issue regarding the shifting of the place of installation of the bore-well from one place to another within the same village. The petitioner has neither filed any document to show the bona fide of his contention nor he could establish any violation of basic human rights of the public at large.
Furthermore, the petitioner stated that “he is a resident of village Nagla Ajeet Gram Panchayat Garhi Madusua, Pragna Patiyali, Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah, and as such he is member of Gaon Sabha”. Except the aforesaid declaration, the petitioner has not made any other averment towards his credentials. The said description is undoubtedly vague and indefinite and cannot be accepted as a disclosure of his credentials.
In view of the above, the Court has no hesitation to note that the petitioner has not disclosed any credential, much less in consonance with the words ‘should precisely and specifically state’ as mandated in the aforesaid Sub-Rule (3-A), Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952) as amended in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra).
Furthermore, from the perusal of the averments made in petition as well as the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, the Court could not find any element of public interest involved in the petition. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is not entertainable as a public interest litigation”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.