Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122621 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18869 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himadari Batra,Radhika Bansal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Hridai Narain Pandey Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 1. The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Respondent No-7 wherein the representation of the Petitioner was rejected which is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No-7 to this Petition. (b) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authority to conduct a fresh, independent and impartial enquiry. (c) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to take strict action against the schools which are not complying with CBSE Affiliation bye-laws 2018 (amended as on 08.07.2020)" 2. Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Himadari Batra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that in Gorakhpur region several schools are running without satisfying the standard as required by the CBSE. It is further submitted that the present petitioner has also a school which is satisfying all the requirements as required by the CBSE. It is further submitted that since several schools without satisfying the norms as required by the CBSE are competitor of the present petitioner, therefore, this Court may be issued a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.11.2024. It is also submitted that on earlier occasion, a Public Interest Litigation was filed by the present petitioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2025 with cost of Rs.25,000/-. It is submitted that respondent no.7 i.e. Chief Revenue Officer, Gorakhpur while passing the impugned order has not taken into submissions and materials on record. 3. Mr. Hriday Narain Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3- CBSE submitted that the petitioner is not effected party, and therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that after taking into consideration of the averments made in the petition as well as the prayer made in the petition, the instant writ petition is nothing but a gross misuse of the process of law and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order passed by the respondent no.7. It is submitted that the competent authority or body is CBSE to give affiliation to the schools after considering their eligibility and other facts. It is also submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court second time as he has already filed a Public Interest Litigation, which has been dismissed. It is, therefore, submitted that the instant petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law. 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3- CBSE, perused the contents made in the petition and documents on record. 5. A writ of certiorari and a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) serve different purposes. Certiorari is a writ used to correct errors made by statutory authority/ court below or tribunals, while PIL is a mechanism for citizens to address issues of public interest. A person filing a writ of certiorari must be directly affected by any decision taken by statutory authority/ lower court/ tribunal/ quasi judicial authority. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner is himself a trustee of the Janki Trust and is running a senior secondary school in Gorakhpur. The grievance is only to the extent that other institutions are obtaining affiliation from CBSE Board without even complying with the basic requirements. 7. Only grievance of the petitioner is that other institutions are not fulfilling the requirements and running their schools are becoming his competitor in the education business, it cannot be a ground for issuance a order/ direction or writ in nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned order. 8. Taking into consideration of the law as discussed above and averments made in the writ petition, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Radhika (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad