# Deebandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 6 ILRA 83
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-06-11
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 638 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deebandhu-samgra-swasthya-avam-siksha-shodh-sansthan-v-u-o-i-ors-54612
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

- Rule 1(3-A), Chapter XXII, Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 - PIL filed by a
Trust through its Chairman challenging
alleged
irregularities
in
NEET-2025
Physics
paper
-
No
disclosure
of
credentials in precise and specific manner
- No material to show espousal of cause
of any marginalized section of society -
Absence of authorization/resolution of
Trust permitting Chairman to institute
proceedings
-
Petition
held
not
maintainable. (Paras 23, 28 to 32)

HELD:
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. (Para 23)

Thus, this Court has no hesitation to note that
the petitioner has not disclosed credentials in
the manner as required under the relevant
Rules. Even otherwise, there is nothing on
record to indicate that the petitioner has
preferred the instant petition espousing the
cause of any member of a disadvantageous
section of the society or any person, who is
downtrodden or for certain disabled person,
who is unable to approach the Court or that the
matter in question relates to infringement or
denial of any basic human right to such
marginalized section of the society which
enables the petitioner to espouse their cause.
(Para 28)

In the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that to
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
save the misuse of the process of the Court in
the name of Public Interest Litigation, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently pressed
for the proper disclosure of the credential of the
petitioner. Furthermore, under the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, 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. (Para 30)

Upon due consideration of the facts in the light
of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court,
as discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the
view that since credentials, as required under
Sub-Rule (3-A), Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, have not
been disclosed as required nor it has been filed
on behalf of the marginalized section of the
society, poor, deprived, illiterate or the disabled
persons, who cannot approach the Court
independently for redressal of the legal wrong
or the injury caused to them. (Para 31)

In addition to above, no document is on record
to show that the person claiming himself to be
the Chairman of the Trust is authorized to file
the present writ petition on behalf of the Trust.
The law on the subject is well settled that in
absence of any resolution or the proof of
authorization the petition is not entertainable.
(Para 32)

Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
83
concealment of fact and the second
is
non
impleadment
of
subsequent
purchasers,
which
is
absolutely
unsustainable in view of discussion made
hereinabove.

34. Therefore, in view of facts and
circumstances of the case, impugned
judgment and order dated 16.09.2024 and
decree dated 19.09.2024 passed in Original
Suit No. 356 of 2023 are bad and hereby
set aside.

35. Both the parties are directed to
maintain the status quo as on date with
regard to nature of property. Both the
parties are further directed not to execute
any agreement to sale or sale deed and also
not create third party right till the final
disposal of Original Suit No. 356 of 2023.

36. With the aforesaid observation,
Appeal is hereby allowed.

37. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 6 ILRA 83
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.06.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

P.I.L. No. 638 of 2025

Deebandhu
Samgra
Swasthya
Avam
Siksha Shodh Sansthan ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Moti Lal Yadav, Arti Rawat

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Syed Mohammad Haider
Rizvi

Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability
- Requirement of disclosure of credentials
- Rule 1(3-A), Chapter XXII, Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 - PIL filed by a
Trust through its Chairman challenging
alleged
irregularities
in
NEET-2025
Physics
paper
-
No
disclosure
of
credentials in precise and specific manner
- No material to show espousal of cause
of any marginalized section of society -
Absence of authorization/resolution of
Trust permitting Chairman to institute
proceedings
-
Petition
held
not
maintainable. (Paras 23, 28 to 32)

HELD:
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. (Para 23)

Thus, this Court has no hesitation to note that
the petitioner has not disclosed credentials in
the manner as required under the relevant
Rules. Even otherwise, there is nothing on
record to indicate that the petitioner has
preferred the instant petition espousing the
cause of any member of a disadvantageous
section of the society or any person, who is
downtrodden or for certain disabled person,
who is unable to approach the Court or that the
matter in question relates to infringement or
denial of any basic human right to such
marginalized section of the society which
enables the petitioner to espouse their cause.
(Para 28)

In the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that to
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
save the misuse of the process of the Court in
the name of Public Interest Litigation, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently pressed
for the proper disclosure of the credential of the
petitioner. Furthermore, under the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, 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. (Para 30)

Upon due consideration of the facts in the light
of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court,
as discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the
view that since credentials, as required under
Sub-Rule (3-A), Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, have not
been disclosed as required nor it has been filed
on behalf of the marginalized section of the
society, poor, deprived, illiterate or the disabled
persons, who cannot approach the Court
independently for redressal of the legal wrong
or the injury caused to them. (Para 31)

In addition to above, no document is on record
to show that the person claiming himself to be
the Chairman of the Trust is authorized to file
the present writ petition on behalf of the Trust.
The law on the subject is well settled that in
absence of any resolution or the proof of
authorization the petition is not entertainable.
(Para 32)

Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal,
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402; (2010) AIR SCW
1029

2. Pankaj Srivastava Vs High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, reported in (2014) 3 UPLBEC 1832

3. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs St. of W.B. & ors.,
reported in AIR 2004 SC 280

4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
reported in 1984 (3) SCC 161
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J
&
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Moti Lal Yadav and Ms.
Arti Rawat, learned counsels for the
petitioner, Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
the opposite party no.3, Shri S.B. Pandey,
learned
Senior
Advocate-cum-Deputy
Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri
Varun
Pandey,
learned
counsel
foropposite party no.1/Union of India and
Shri Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi,
learned counsel for theopposite party
no.4.

2. Notice to theopposite party
no.2/National Testing Agency, in view of
the order proposed to be passed, is
dispensed with.

3. By means of the present petition,
the petitioner has sought multiple reliefs in
the nature of writ of mandamus which are
as under :-

 "i. Issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari thereby stay/ quash the physics
paper and also stay the upcoming result
dated 14/06/2025 of NEET-2025 conducted
on 04/05/2025 contained as ANNEXURE
NO. 8 and 9 in this writ petition.

 ii. Issue writ order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite party NO. 2 i.e. National Testing
Agency (NTA) to reconduct the physics
question paper of NEET 2025. In the
interest of students at large.

 iii. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite party NO 1 to 4 to publish all the
results related to NEET, JEE, IIT etc. in
6 All. Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
85
public domain of all examinations along
with response sheet as per the provisions of
education policy 1986.

 iv. issue a writ order direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite party NO 1 to pass an appropriate
order for conducting a detailed inquiry of
manipulation of physics question paper of
NEET 2025 conducted on 04/05/2025 and
take appropriate legal actions against the
guilty persons involved in this scam.

 v. issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite party NO I to pass an appropriate
order for conducting a detailed inquiry on
huge variation in obtained marks of
students belonging to different states of
NEET 2024 results of all the states of the
nation.

 vi. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite parties / competent respondents to
abolish 15% All India Quota in state seats for
saving the states from abnormal variations in
NEET results which is against the mandate of
article 14 of the constitution of India."

4. Precisely, the case of the
petitioner is that the petitioner is a
registered
trust
namely
Deenbandhu
Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh
Sansthan having its registered office at
17/675 Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

5. It has been stated that the aim
and object of the trust is to promote modern
education in the area of science, medicine
and technology. The petitioner-Trust has
annexed the copy of the Trust Deed as
Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and the
Article 3 of the said deed provides the
following aim and the objects for which the
petitioner's body has been established is as
under :-

 "ARTICLE 3.

 AIMS
AND
OBJECTS
FOR
WHICH
THIS
FOUNDATION
IS
ESTABLISHED ARE:

 3.1 To establish, run, support and
grant aid/or others financial assurance to
schools,
Colleges,
Hospitals,
Medical
Institutes, Technological Institutes Nursing
Institutes, Dispensaries, Maternity Homes,
Child Welfare Centre, Libraries, Reading
Rooms, Laboratories, Research Centre and
other Institutions of the like nature in India.

 3.2
To
create
awareness
regarding the need for National as well as
International Integration and Co-operation
through
self
employed
experienced,
knowledgeable and qualified persons in the
area of motivation willing to promote
social work.

 3.3 To establish a research
station for testing the air, water, noise, soil,
nuclear radiation and food to help the
activists in creating and establishing
voluntary and non-government body for
promotion of open non-formal education
through spiritual discourses for the benefit
of humankind.

 3.4. To suggest national and
international
leads,
alternatives
and
approaches to the solution for problems
relating to health, environment, peace and
justice etc.

 3.5. To collaborate, officiate and
federate with other government agencies
and bodies for implementing the projects of
development nature all over the world.
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 3.6. To provide education that
prepare students for social responsibility
and communicate effectively and develop a
global awareness and sensitivity for a
better global understanding of world peace
and unity.

 3.7. To promote and research the
cause of National Integration and unity of
India and to fight against the forces of
separatism in India."

6. Contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the Central
Government took a decision to conduct a
common
examination
of
the
aspirants/candidates for the admission in
MBBS Course in all the medical colleges
of the country through National-Eligibilitycum-Entrance-Test (in short "NEET") in
place of All India Pre-Medical Test for
which the Central Government has also
taken a decision to conduct the NEET
Examination
under
the
umbrella
of
National Testing Agency (in short "NTA")
which is registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The NTA was set
up by the Ministry of Education by a
cabinet decision dated 10.11.2017.

7. It is also stated that on behalf of
the petitioner that since 2017 the aforesaid
examination
was
conducted
by
the
authorities
concerned
without
any
interference of the outsider in setting the
NEET question papers.

8. Submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner giving rise to the present
petition is that certain questions in the
question paper were included in the
aforesaid examination are from outside the
syllabus. He submitted that questions can
never be out of syllabus and the papersetters must not be ignorant of the same.
9. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
questions which were asked in the
aforesaid examination were taught by some
coaching institutes and the aspirants
belonging to that coaching institutes would
only be benefited.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has quoted certain questions in
the writ petition with the allegations that
the said questions are erroneously framed
and solved problems by 'ALLEN' coaching
institute and posted by it on internet on
21.07.2023 and again incidentally 'ALLEN'
and 'AKASH' coaching institutes in their
key solutions have exactly followed the
same errors. It has been very categorically
submitted that the paper-setters of the
NEET Examination 2025 have taken the
said questions from the materials posted by
the coaching institutes on the internet
without applying their minds.

11. Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the the respondent no.3, at
the very outset, has raised the preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the
present Public Interest Litigation, mainly
on following grounds :-

 (i)
PresentPublic
Interest
Litigation has been filed by a Trust through
its chairman without any resolution or
authority in favour of the chairman to file
the same.

 (ii) The credentials and other
details have not been explained as required
under Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter
XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
which has been amended in the light of the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal
6 All. Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
87
Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in
(2010) 3 SCC 402; (2010) AIR SCW
1029.

12.
Contention
of
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that
the
present
writ
petition
is
neither
entertainable nor maintainable for want of
compliance of Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of
Chapter XXII of Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952.

13. He further contends that the
present writ petition is a proxy petition
filed with material concealment of facts
and as such, the same is liable to be
dismissed on the aforesaid grounds.

14. Shri Syed Mohammad Haider
Rizvi, learned counsel for the Director
General
of
Medical
Education
and
Training,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow
(opposite party no.4) also opposed the
presentPublic Interest Litigation on the
ground that the petitioner has not disclosed
the basis of challenging the question as
quoted in the writ petition and nor has
made any categorical statement that it has
ever done any research work on the subject
matter involved in thePublic Interest
Litigation before filing the same.

15. He further raised objection
regarding locus standi of the petitioner to
raise the dispute involved in the present
petition
by
way
ofPublic
Interest
Litigation.

16.
Heard
learned
counsels
appearing for the parties and perused the
records.

17. Before entering into the merits
of the case, the preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the writ
petition as raised by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents is to be dealt
with first.

18.
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 Versus High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, reported in
(2014) 3 UPLBEC 1832.

19. 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."

20.The aforesaid Rule requires a
person espousing a public cause, to file an
affidavit narrating his credentials in precise
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and specific manner and also the public
cause which is sought to be espoused.

21. 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 vote in a convention or other
deliberative assembly."

22. Moreover, the Oxford EnglishEnglish-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.

23. 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.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey versus
State of West Bengal & Others, reported
in AIR 2004 SC 280, has been pleased to
lay down the parameters to be considered
while
entertaining
a
Public
Interest
Litigation, the extract of relevant para 14 is
reproduced below:

 "14. The Court has to be satisfied
about (a) the credentials of the applicant;
(b) the prima facie correctness or nature of
information
given
by
him;
(c)
the
information being not vague and indefinite.
The information should show gravity and
seriousness involved. Court has to strike
balance between two conflicting interests;
(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in
wild and reckless allegations besmirching
the character of others: and (ii) avoidance
of public mischief and to avoid mischievous
petitions seeking to assail, for oblique
motive, justifiable executive actions. In
such case, however, the Court cannot
afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely
careful to see that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance, it does not
encroach upon the sphere reserved by the
Constitution to the, Executive and the
Legislature?"

25. At this stage, it is worth
mentioning that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal &
Ors. (Supra) has dealt with the issues of
abuse of public interest litigation and the
remedial measures by which its misuse can
be prevented or curbed. The relevant
portion of the said judgement is reproduced
below:

 "161. Unfortunately, of late, it
has been noticed that such an important
jurisdiction which has been carefully
carved out, created and nurtured with great
care and caution by the courts, is being
blatantly abused by filing some petitions
6 All. Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
89
with oblique motives. We think time has
come when genuine and bona fide public
interest litigation must be encouraged
whereas frivolous public interest litigation
should be discouraged.

 162. In our considered opinion,
we have to protect and preserve this
important jurisdiction in the larger
interest of the people of this country but
we must take effective steps to prevent
and cure its abuse on the basis of
monetary and non- monetary directions
by the courts."

26. It would not be out of place
to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India & Ors., reported in 1984
(3) SCC 161,entertained a petition of
even
an
unregistered
association
espousing
the
cause
of
over
downtrodden or its members observing
that cause of "little Indians" can be
established/espoused
by
any
person
having no interest in the matter. In the
said public interest litigation where
certain workmen were living in bondage
and inhuman conditions this cause was
brought to the notice of the Court. The
Apex Court noticed that it was not
expected by the Government that it
should raise preliminary objection that
no fundamental rights of the petitioner
or the workmen on whose behalf the
petition has been filed, have been
infringed.

27.
It
is
in
the
aforesaid
backdrop that it would be seen that the
concept of "person aggrieved", was
diluted in context of public interest
litigation which primarily have been
divided in three phases. The Apex Court
in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal
(Supra) in Para-43 of the said report
have noticed the three phases of public
interest
litigation
which
is
being
reproduced hereinafter:-

 "43. In this judgment, we would
like
to
deal
with
the
origin and
development of public interest litigation.
We deem it appropriate to broadly divide
the public interest litigation in three
phases:

 - Phase I.--It deals with cases of
this Court where directions and orders
were
passed
primarily
to
protect
fundamental rights under Article 21 of
the marginalised groups and sections of
the society who because of extreme
poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot
approach this Court or the High Courts.

 - Phase II.--It deals with the
cases relating to protection, preservation
of ecology, environment, forests, marine
life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical
monuments, etc. etc.

 - Phase III.--It deals with the
directions issued by the Courts in
maintaining the probity, transparency
and integrity in governance."

28. Thus, this Court has no
hesitation to note that the petitioner has
not disclosed credentials in the manner as
required under the relevant Rules. Even
otherwise, there is nothing on record to
indicate that the petitioner has preferred
the instant petition espousing the cause of
any member of a disadvantageous section
of the society or any person, who is
downtrodden or for certain disabled
person, who is unable to approach the
Court or that the matter in question
relates to infringement or denial of any
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
basic human right to such marginalized
section of the society which enables the
petitioner to espouse their cause.

29. Dealing with the objection
raised by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 4 on the question of
locus standi, this Court is of the view that
the common rule of locus standi is that
the person who suffers a legal injury or
whose legal right is infringed, alone has
locus
standi
to
invoke
the
writ
jurisdiction to avoid miscarriage of
justice. The said rule has been relaxed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgments in the cases where the
grievance is raised before the Court on
behalf of poor, deprived, illiterate or the
disabled persons, who cannot approach
the Court independently for redressal of
the legal wrong or the injury caused to
them on account of violation of any
constitutional or legal right. On due
consideration of the factual matrix of the
instant case this Court is of the definite
opinion that the present Public Interest
Litigation/petition does not fall within
exceptions mentioned herein-above.

30. In the case of Balwant
Singh Chaufal (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that to
save the misuse of the process of the
Court in the name of Public Interest
Litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has consistently pressed for the proper
disclosure of the credential of the
petitioner.
Furthermore,under
the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, 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.

31. Upon due consideration of
the facts in the light of the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as
discussed herein-above, this Court is
of the view that since credentials, as
required under Sub-Rule (3-A), Rule 1
of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, have not
been disclosed as required nor it has
been
filed
on
behalf
of
the
marginalized section of the society,
poor,
deprived,
illiterate
or
the
disabled
persons,
who
cannot
approach the Court independently for
redressal of the legal wrong or the
injury caused to them.

32.In addition to above, no
document is on record to show that the
person claiming himself to be the
Chairman of the Trust is authorized to
file the present writ petition on behalf
of the Trust. The law on the subject is
well settled that in absence of any
resolution or the proof of authorization
the petition is not entertainable.

33.In the light of the discussion
as made herein-above, the present
Public Interest Litigation is not liable to
be
entertained.
Accordingly,
it
is
dismissed. No order as to costs.

34. Before parting, it would be
appropriate to make it clear that this
Court has declined to entertain the
present Public Interest Litigation for the
reasons
narrated
herein-above.
We
clarify that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
----------
6 All. Jakhoo Ram Vs. Santosh & Ors.
91
(2025) 6 ILRA 91
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.06.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 6055 of 2025

Jakhoo Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Santosh & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal

Counsel for the Respondent:

Civil Law - Injunction - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 227 - Petitioner
preferred Original Suit and in the said suit,
an interim injunction was granted -
respondents filed Misc. Appeal - appellate
Court cancelled the interim injunction but
no further direction was given to pass fresh
order on the injunction application - petition
disposed of directing the Court below
before whom the Original Suit was pending
to decide the interim injunction application
afresh
after
providing
opportunity
of
hearing to all the parties concerned (Para 5,
6).

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The petitoner is a plaintiff and
he preferred Original Suit No.1615 of
2013 in the Court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Azamgarh. In the
aforesaid suit, an interim injunction
was
granted
in
favour
of
the
petitioner on 21.08.2023. Aggrieved
with
the
aforesaid
order,
the
respondents had filed Misc.Appeal
No.73 of 2023.
2. It is argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the
appellate
Court
has
cancelled
the
interim injunction granted by the trial
Court vide order dated 9.05.2025 but no
further direction was given to the Court
before whom the matter is pending to
pass fresh order on the injunction
application and prays that the Court
before whom the matter is pending be
directed to pass fresh order on the
injunction application and the parties be
directed to maintain status quo till the
order
passed
on
the
injunction
application.

3. In view of the order proposed
to be passed herein, no useful purpose
would be served by putting the opposite
party to notice and keeping this petition
pending before this Court. However, in
case the opposite party feels aggrieved
by the order his/her right to seek
modification/variation of the order is
being kept reserved.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.

5. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, the present petition is
disposed of directing the Court below
before whom the Original Suit No.1615
of 2013is pending to decide the interim
injunction application afresh within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this
order but after providing opportunity of
hearing to all the parties concerned.

6. Till 31.07.2025 or till the
decision taken on the stay application
whichever is earlier, the interim order
granted by the trial Court on 21.08.2023
will continue.