Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25016-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 425 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prabhat Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by Ms. Anamika Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.6 is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5, and Ms. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 3. This writ petition filed in public interest prays for a direction to respondent nos.1 to 5 to restrain respondent no. 6 from running a Basic Education School which, according to the petitioner, has been established in contravention of Section 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2009"). 4. In paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that Section 18 of Act, 2009 provides that no school shall be established without obtaining a certificate of recognition. This stand taken by the petitioner has been refuted by learned counsel for respondent no.6 by placing a recognition certificate of the competent authority issued on 24.02.2025, which is valid up to 24.02.2026. 5. This being the position, it is clear that a wrong statement of fact has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition, which is sworn under his own affidavit. The petitioner is stated to be a student of B.Sc. first semester and has stepped into the arena of being a public-spirited person while pursuing education. This apart, it is brought to our notice that an institution is run by the father of the petitioner in the close vicinity of the educational institution in question. On a pointed query made to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why such a vital fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition, which impinges upon the very locus and maintainability of the present petition. 6. Any past irregularity on the part of the alleged institution is already a subject matter of ongoing investigation pursuant to the criminal case which has already been lodged and this Court, in the light of relief sought herein, is not required to delve into all such issues in the present case. 7. The writ petition does not set out any other illegality which the running institution may suffer from and on account of which, it may deserve to be closed. Thus, the bona fides of instituting the present writ petition are highly doubtful. The sole motive behind instituting such a litigation is the personal interest of the petitioner to serve none other than his own family. This spirit of public interest litigation has been deprecated in a catena of judgments. It is for this reason that credentials have to be disclosed in PIL. In the present case, however, not only that the averments made in the writ petition suffer from serious falsity, but the personal interest of the petitioner also appears to be manifest and has been surreptitiously concealed. The petitioner, who is a student, does deserve sympathy but reckless statements made against a party can not be viewed lightly. 8. Taking a lenient view in the matter, we dismiss the writ petition as non-maintainable by imposing a cost of Rs.11,000/-, which shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J) Order Date :- 1.5.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench