# Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 606
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-05
- **Case number:** P.I.L. Civil No. 19497 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45472
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226PIL-maintainability of-the firm in question
was earlier inspected by the inspecting
agency and was declared in Category 'C'-
since the purchase from the firm would be
taken subsequent to its certification by the
inspecting agency-it is certainly not a
petition on behalf of disadvantageous group
of persons rather one on behalf of a
competitor-a dispute between two warring
groups is in the realm of a private dispute
and is not allowed to be agitated as a Public
Interest Litigation- the petition is not
maintainable in public interest at the behest
of the petitioner-the petitioner has no
credentials to move PIL.(Para 2 to 23)

B. The petitioner claims to be a Social
worker, but in order to substantiate the
nature of the social work he is doing or
seeks to do, he has not disclosed any
experience that makes him suitable or
perfect and no document in proof has
been furnished. The person filing PIL
should precisely and specifically, apart
from other things, state his credentials
and the public cause he is seeking to
espouse. These are essential elements
because the relaxation provided from the
strict rule of locus standi lately came to be
misused by unscrupulous persons seeking
cheap publicity. (Para 5 to 9)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed accordingly. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2020)12ILR A606
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

P.I.L. Civil No. 19497 of 2020

Narendra Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobhit Kant.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rishabh Kapoor

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article 226PIL-maintainability of-the firm in question
was earlier inspected by the inspecting
agency and was declared in Category 'C'-
since the purchase from the firm would be
taken subsequent to its certification by the
inspecting agency-it is certainly not a
petition on behalf of disadvantageous group
of persons rather one on behalf of a
competitor-a dispute between two warring
groups is in the realm of a private dispute
and is not allowed to be agitated as a Public
Interest Litigation- the petition is not
maintainable in public interest at the behest
of the petitioner-the petitioner has no
credentials to move PIL.(Para 2 to 23)

B. The petitioner claims to be a Social
worker, but in order to substantiate the
nature of the social work he is doing or
seeks to do, he has not disclosed any
experience that makes him suitable or
perfect and no document in proof has
been furnished. The person filing PIL
should precisely and specifically, apart
from other things, state his credentials
and the public cause he is seeking to
espouse. These are essential elements
because the relaxation provided from the
strict rule of locus standi lately came to be
misused by unscrupulous persons seeking
cheap publicity. (Para 5 to 9)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. St. of U.K. Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal ,(2010)
3 SCC 402

2. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee
Vs C.K. Ranjan, (2003) 7 SCC 546

3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs UOI, (1984) 2 SCR 67

4. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr., Vs UOI &
ors., (1989) AIR SC 549

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. &
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri H. N. Singh, Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Shobhit Kant,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. P.
Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 and Sri Rishab Kapoor, learned
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate by
profession and has preferred this petition in
Public Interest. In paragraph - 4 of the
petition, he has stated that he is also
involved in social work, but he has not
disclosed his credentials or the nature of
social work so far done by him.

3. The petitioner in Public Interest
seeks quashing of letter dated 18.9.2020 of
the Chief Engineer (Purchase) of U.P. Jal
Nigam requesting M/s Crown Agents
(India) Pvt. Ltd. to inspect M/s. Rashmi
Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata and issuance of
mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and
12 All. Narendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
607
3 not to permit re-inspection of M/s Rashmi
Metaliks Limited, Kolkata.

4. The normal rule is that a 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 common
rule of locus standi stands relaxed 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. These are mostly cases in public
interest, i.e., cases on behalf of class of
persons mentioned above.

5. However, the relaxation so
provided from the strict rule of locus standi
lately came to be misused or abused by
unscrupulous
persons
seeking
cheap
publicity. Therefore, the Supreme Court in
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC 402] observed that
as the process of the Court is frequently
abused in the name of Public Interest
Litigation, all High Courts need to frame
Rules to prevent such abuse. In compliance
with the directions of the Supreme Court,
the Allahabad High Court Rules were also
amended and Sub-Rule (3-A) was added
under Chapter XXII Rule 1 w.e.f. 1.5.2010.
The aforesaid Rule reads 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 espouse; 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."

6. A simple reading of the aforesaid
Rule reveals that in addition to the other
requirements mentioned under the Chapter
for filing a writ petition, the person filing
the petition in Public Interest should
precisely and specifically, apart from other
things, state his credentials and the public
cause he is seeking to espouse. Therefore,
disclosure of credentials and the public
purpose sought to be espoused are also
essential elements to be stated in initiating
proceedings in public interest.

7. The petitioner in the writ petition,
except for mentioning that he is a Lawyer
and is involved in a social work, has not
stated anything covering any of the above
essential requirements. In short, he has not
disclosed his credentials.

8. The dictionary meaning of the word
'credentials' is the qualities and the experience
of a person that make him suitable for doing a
particular job. The Oxford English-EnglishHindi 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.

9. The petitioner herein claims to be a
Social Worker, but in order to substantiate
the nature of the social work he is doing or
seeks to do, he has not disclosed any
experience that makes him suitable or
perfect for doing the said job and no
document in proof has been furnished.
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Black's Law Dictionary, 10th
edition, defines 'credential' a document or
other evidence that proves one's authority
or expertise; a testimonial that a person is
entitled to credit or to the right to exercise
official power.

11. The petitioner, in the absence of
any documentary proof to establish his
authority or expertise in doing social work,
does not have the requisite credentials to
initiate petition in Public Interest.

12.

Considering
the
aforesaid
definition(s) of the term 'credential' and the
law on entertaining the PIL what we feel is
that for maintaining the PIL the petitioner
in the writ petition, in brief, should state,
with proof, that what he has done and what
expertise he has on the subject matter of
PIL as also that what exercise (sufficient)
has been carried out by the petitioner
before the administration prior to knocking
the door of the Court and that what injury
would be caused to the downtrodden of the
society or public at large if cause under PIL
is not espoused by the Court.

13. In Guruvayoor Devaswom
Managing Committee v. C.K. Ranjan
[(2003) 7 SCC 546], it has been observed
that the Courts are constitutionally bound
to protect the fundamental rights of
disadvantageous people and therefore, can
entertain petitions under Articles 32/226 of
the Constitution of India filed by any
interested person in the welfare of the
people who are in a disadvantageous
position and are unable to knock the doors
of the Courts.

14. The petitioner in filing this
petition in Public Interest has not even
disclosed that he is filing this petition on
behalf of such disadvantageous persons or
that injustice is meted out to a large number
of people and therefore it has become
necessary for him to come forward on their
behalf.

15. It is well-settled that Public
Interest Litigation is for ensuring basic
human rights to the deprived and to secure
social, economic and political justice. The
Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India [(1984) 2 SCR 67]
observed that the public interest litigation is
not in the nature of adversary litigation but
a challenge to the Government and its
officers to make basic human rights
meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable
sections of the community. It is only to
protect such class of persons against
violation of their basic human rights which
is the constitutional obligation of the
executive that ordinarily recourse to public
interest litigation may be permitted.

16. In view of the aforesaid reasons and
the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the
petitioner is not a person, who has any
credentials to move in Public Interest. Simply
on the allegation that he is a Lawyer and a
person involved in social work without
disclosing his credentials and in the absence of
the fact that the petition has been preferred in
the interest of justice for large number of
downtrodden persons who are unable to
approach the Courts of Law, the petitioner is
not entitled to maintain this petition in public
interest that too in a matter which does not
involve basic human rights.

17. The firm, i.e., M/s Rashmi
Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata in question was
earlier inspected and was declared in
Category 'C'.

18. The letter dated 28.08.2020
(Annexure - 3) of the Chief Engineer
12 All. Pradeep Kumar Goswami Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
609
(Purchase), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow on
record clearly stated that the inspecting
agency, i.e., M/s Crown Agents (India) Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi may inspect the aforesaid
firm and it is only on its certification that
the firm meets the standards provided the
supply from the firm-M/s Rashmi Metaliks
Ltd., would be taken.

19. It is pertinent to mention here that
U.P. Jal Nigam is not directly involved in the
purchase of any material from any firm, rather it
awards contracts on turn-key basis and it is the
contractor who makes purchases of the material
from amongst firms prescribed by the U. P. Jal
Nigam, provided there is otherwise no legal
impediment.

20. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the letter of the Chief
Engineer (Purchase) on record, since the
purchases from the aforesaid firm would be
taken subsequent to its certification by the
inspecting agency, we do not find that this
matter requires interference by us in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

21. Moreover, the controversy sought to
be raised is one relating to award of contracts
and the possibility of the petitioner being setup by the rival groups cannot be ruled out. It is
certainly not a petition on behalf of any
disadvantageous group of persons rather and
one on behalf of a competitor.

22. It is trite to mention here that a
dispute between two warring groups is in
the realm of a private dispute and is not
allowed to be agitated as a Public Interest
Litigation vide Ramsharan Autyanuprasi
and another v. Union of India and others
[AIR 1989 SC 549].

23. Accordingly, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, as narrated
above, the petition is dismissed as not
maintainable in public interest at the behest
of the petitioner.
----------
(2020)12ILR A609
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMAD, J.

Special Appeal (D) No. 286 of 2020

Pradeep Kumar Goswami ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sandeep Kumar, Sri Govind Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Dwivedi

A. Service Law - U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921- U.P. High School and Intermediate
College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
other Employees) Act, 1971

Respondent no. 5 being senior to the appellant
and having requisite qualification was illegally
denied
promotion
by
the
Committee
of
Management by playing fraud as no such
affidavit
expressing
no
objection
to
the
promotion of the appellant prior to the
respondent no. 5 was ever filed by him. Learned
Singe Judge after fully considering the nature of
the dispute, nature and the extent of evidence
that may have to be appreciated, the complexity
of the issues that arise for determination has
remitted the matter to the concerned authorities
for reconsideration. (Para 14 & 19)

Appeal disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ladli Prasad Vs Kamal Distillery AIR 1963 SC
1279