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 Constitution of India, Art.226 - Allahabad High Court Rules - Chapter XXII Rule 1 Sub-Rule (3-A) - Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) - Essential facts to be stated in petition - petitioner must give his credentials, state public cause he is seeking to espouse - state, with proof, what he has done & what expertise he has on the subject matter of PIL - what sufficient exercise has been carried out by him before the administration prior to knocking the door of Court - 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 (Para 12) Petitioner sought quashing of letter of Chief Engineer directing the inspecting agency to inspect a firm - Petitioner simply stated that he is a Lawyer and a social work - without disclosing his credentials - Held - dispute is between two groups which is in the realm of a private dispute - cannot be agitated as P.I.L. - Petition not on behalf of any disadvantageous group of persons rather on behalf of competitor - matter does not involve basic human rights - Public Interest Litigation, not maintainable (Para 16, 21, 22) Dismissed (E-5) Listed of Cases cited:- 1. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee Vs C.K. Ranjan (2003) 7 SCC 546 2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs U.O.I. (1984) 2 SCR 67 3. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & anr. U.O.I. & anr. AIR 1989 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 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 independently.