ORDER

Heard the petitioner, who is present in person and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2.

By this public interest litigation the petitioner praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to protect welfare rights of the registered GST dealers by directing the respondents not to bother in earning livelihood by fair means of registered GSTN dealers and remove the hurdles for smooth business operations for the welfare of GSTN dealers and society as well.

Petitioner submits that he has been encouraged to file the present public interest litigation for welfare of poor and weaker GSTN registered dealers, who have been facing harassment since long due to unfair trade practices and creating unhealthy business atmosphere resulting violation of basic human rights and social injustice by the respondents. It is further submitted that he has made a representation in this regard but no action has been taken on the same.

Sri Pandey and Sri Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present public interest litigation by contending that though the petition is ostensibly filed in the public interest, the petitioner has not made due disclosure as required by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which was amended in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and pray for dismissal of present petition.

Primarily, it is also duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. It would also be appropriate for this Court for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

Following the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules, 1952 was amended by including sub-rule (3A) in Rule 1, which is as follows:-

“(3A) 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 him or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State.”

This amendment was brought out in compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in order to ensure that the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bonafide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests.

So far as credential of the petitioner is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to submit before this Court regarding his own credentials and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is misuse and abuse of the process of the Court.

In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.