Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy

6. The record indicates that learned counsel for the private-respondent No.4 had raised objections regarding personal interest and ill-will of the petitioner and the same was indicated in the short counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the private-respondent No.4. It was stated that the petitioner has incorrectly shown himself to be the President of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karamchari Mahasangh rather the petitioner had already retired in the year 2023. It was further objected that the petitioner has misused the letterhead of the Union.

7. It is pointed out that the private-respondent No.4 in course of his duties had taken action against the petitioner and he was required to vacate the office space and in the aforesaid context, the petitioner has harboured ill-will against the private-respondent No.4 and the instant petition is actuated with malice and there is no public interest involved. 3 WPIL No. 757 of 2025

8. It has also been pointed out that the wife of the petitioner is an accredited Contractor and runs a firm under the name and style of 'M/s. Pooja Electrical', Indira Nagar, Lucknow and since certain approvals were required, which were not granted, hence, the petitioner has directed his guns towards the private-respondent No.4 and moreover the alleged allegation of corruption is nothing but a camouflage for ventilating his private grievance in the instant public interest litigation.

9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material available on record.

10. This Court finds that apparently, the petitioner has not given his credentials as required in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (for short, 'the Rules of 1952'). This Court further finds that though in Paragraph-2, it is stated that the petitioner is the President of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karamchari Mahasangh, but there is no material brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid fact. Even otherwise, if the petitioner was filing the petition in the capacity of the President of the alleged Society/Association then he should have indicated the same and should have brought the bye-laws of the Society or confederation to establish its legal status to institute this petition and the authority letter indicating that the petitioner has been authorized to file this petition, but the same is conspicuously absent from the record of this petition.

11. The petitioner has brought on record certain documents which are internal correspondence between the Electrical Safety Directorate and the State. The said communication and documentation is neither referred nor addressed to the petitioner or to the alleged association of which the petitioner claim to be the President.

12. The record further indicates that the petitioner has brought on record a letter dated 02.06.2025 on the letterhead of Uttar Pradesh State Employees Confederation and it is signed by the petitioner as its Regional Incharge, President.

13. It could not be disputed that the petitioner has retired. It could not be explained under what circumstances and in what capacity, the petitioner has 4 WPIL No. 757 of 2025 filed the instant petition. There is no explanation given by the petitioner to indicate as from where the petitioner has obtained the documents, which have been annexed with the petition. Another feature that is reflected from the record is that the said letters relate to the year 2010, 2013 and 2018 respectively. Certain other letters are of the month of May, 2024, but it could not be explained as to how the petitioner could lay its hands on the said correspondence especially when neither the same was addressed to the petitioner nor there is any averment to indicate that he had obtained it through any authorized channel.

14. It is not disputed that the wife of the petitioner is an accredited Contractor and is attached with the Electrical Department. There is no denial of the fact that certain proceedings were initiated from where the petitioner/Association was evicted, as stated in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private-respondent No.4. Moreso, if the petition is on behalf of the Association then in absence of any material regarding the legal status of the Association and lack of authority of the petitioner, this petition cannot be maintained. If the petition is filed as a private individual even then in absence of credentials, the petition cannot be maintained.

15. In light of the above, there is no element of public interest involved as evident from the record rather it appear to be an attempt by the petitioner to settle his private scores with the private-respondent No.4, which cannot be appreciated.

16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gurmet Singh Soni v. State of U.P. and others, 2021 SCC OnLine All 413 of which one of us (Justice Jaspreet Singh) was a Member had the occasion to consider the issue of credentials as required to be complied with in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Rules of 1952 and the relevant paragraphs 28 to 31 read as under:- "28. Considering the fact that the instant petition has been preferred as public interest litigation by a practicing Advocate, it will be necessary to note whether the petitioner has scrupulously complied with the provisions of Chapter-XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which has been amended and incorporated w.e.f. 01.05.2010. The relevant Rule (3-A) reads as under:- 5 WPIL No. 757 of 2025 ''(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.''

29. A plain reading of the aforesaid rule would indicate that amongst other disclosure, any person filing a writ petition in shape of Public Interest Litigation must precisely and specifically state his credentials and the public cause he is seeking to espouse. In compliance of the aforesaid rule, the petitioner ought to have stated his credentials clearly.

30. The word "credential" has a specific connotation and means the quality and experience of a person that makes him suitable for doing a particular job. This aspect of the matter has already been noticed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., reported in 2020 (11) ADJ 637 (LB) (DB) and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereinafter:- "7. 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- 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.

8. 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 6 WPIL No. 757 of 2025 document in proof has been furnished."

31. The word 'credential' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition: "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." However, for the present purposes the meaning at S.No.1 above is the most relevant and apt for the purposes of construing Rule 1 (3-A) of Chapter-XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules."

17. Noticing the aforesaid and taking note of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the instant petition, this Court finds that there is no fair compliance of the Rules of this Court and also considering the dictum of the Apex Court in State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402 as well as Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72, this Court finds that the petition has not been filed in public interest and is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, the cost is being made easy. September 16, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

6. The record indicates that learned counsel for the private-respondent No.4 had raised objections regarding personal interest and ill-will of the petitioner and the same was indicated in the short counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the private-respondent No.4. It was stated that the petitioner has incorrectly shown himself to be the President of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karamchari Mahasangh rather the petitioner had already retired in the year 2023. It was further objected that the petitioner has misused the letterhead of the Union.

7. It is pointed out that the private-respondent No.4 in course of his duties had taken action against the petitioner and he was required to vacate the office space and in the aforesaid context, the petitioner has harboured ill-will against the private-respondent No.4 and the instant petition is actuated with malice and there is no public interest involved. 3 WPIL No. 757 of 2025

8. It has also been pointed out that the wife of the petitioner is an accredited Contractor and runs a firm under the name and style of 'M/s. Pooja Electrical', Indira Nagar, Lucknow and since certain approvals were required, which were not granted, hence, the petitioner has directed his guns towards the private-respondent No.4 and moreover the alleged allegation of corruption is nothing but a camouflage for ventilating his private grievance in the instant public interest litigation.

9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material available on record.

10. This Court finds that apparently, the petitioner has not given his credentials as required in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (for short, 'the Rules of 1952'). This Court further finds that though in Paragraph-2, it is stated that the petitioner is the President of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karamchari Mahasangh, but there is no material brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid fact. Even otherwise, if the petitioner was filing the petition in the capacity of the President of the alleged Society/Association then he should have indicated the same and should have brought the bye-laws of the Society or confederation to establish its legal status to institute this petition and the authority letter indicating that the petitioner has been authorized to file this petition, but the same is conspicuously absent from the record of this petition.

11. The petitioner has brought on record certain documents which are internal correspondence between the Electrical Safety Directorate and the State. The said communication and documentation is neither referred nor addressed to the petitioner or to the alleged association of which the petitioner claim to be the President.

12. The record further indicates that the petitioner has brought on record a letter dated 02.06.2025 on the letterhead of Uttar Pradesh State Employees Confederation and it is signed by the petitioner as its Regional Incharge, President.

13. It could not be disputed that the petitioner has retired. It could not be explained under what circumstances and in what capacity, the petitioner has 4 WPIL No. 757 of 2025 filed the instant petition. There is no explanation given by the petitioner to indicate as from where the petitioner has obtained the documents, which have been annexed with the petition. Another feature that is reflected from the record is that the said letters relate to the year 2010, 2013 and 2018 respectively. Certain other letters are of the month of May, 2024, but it could not be explained as to how the petitioner could lay its hands on the said correspondence especially when neither the same was addressed to the petitioner nor there is any averment to indicate that he had obtained it through any authorized channel.

14. It is not disputed that the wife of the petitioner is an accredited Contractor and is attached with the Electrical Department. There is no denial of the fact that certain proceedings were initiated from where the petitioner/Association was evicted, as stated in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private-respondent No.4. Moreso, if the petition is on behalf of the Association then in absence of any material regarding the legal status of the Association and lack of authority of the petitioner, this petition cannot be maintained. If the petition is filed as a private individual even then in absence of credentials, the petition cannot be maintained.

15. In light of the above, there is no element of public interest involved as evident from the record rather it appear to be an attempt by the petitioner to settle his private scores with the private-respondent No.4, which cannot be appreciated.

16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gurmet Singh Soni v. State of U.P. and others, 2021 SCC OnLine All 413 of which one of us (Justice Jaspreet Singh) was a Member had the occasion to consider the issue of credentials as required to be complied with in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Rules of 1952 and the relevant paragraphs 28 to 31 read as under:- "28. Considering the fact that the instant petition has been preferred as public interest litigation by a practicing Advocate, it will be necessary to note whether the petitioner has scrupulously complied with the provisions of Chapter-XXII Rule 1(3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which has been amended and incorporated w.e.f. 01.05.2010. The relevant Rule (3-A) reads as under:- 5 WPIL No. 757 of 2025 ''(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.''

29. A plain reading of the aforesaid rule would indicate that amongst other disclosure, any person filing a writ petition in shape of Public Interest Litigation must precisely and specifically state his credentials and the public cause he is seeking to espouse. In compliance of the aforesaid rule, the petitioner ought to have stated his credentials clearly.

30. The word "credential" has a specific connotation and means the quality and experience of a person that makes him suitable for doing a particular job. This aspect of the matter has already been noticed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., reported in 2020 (11) ADJ 637 (LB) (DB) and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereinafter:- "7. 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- 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.

8. 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 6 WPIL No. 757 of 2025 document in proof has been furnished."

31. The word 'credential' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition: "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." However, for the present purposes the meaning at S.No.1 above is the most relevant and apt for the purposes of construing Rule 1 (3-A) of Chapter-XXII of Allahabad High Court Rules."

17. Noticing the aforesaid and taking note of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the instant petition, this Court finds that there is no fair compliance of the Rules of this Court and also considering the dictum of the Apex Court in State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, (2010) 3 SCC 402 as well as Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72, this Court finds that the petition has not been filed in public interest and is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, the cost is being made easy. September 16, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench