Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139611-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27456 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Pathak Respondent :- Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jalaj Singh,Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Shri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. He submits that this is a third round of litigation filed by the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner had instituted a Writ-C No. 9416 of 2025 (Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of U.P. and 7 others), which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2025. While dismissing the said writ petition, liberty was accorded in favour of the petitioner to institute a fresh petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, if so desired. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1919 of 2025. However, in the said proceedings, the petitioner did not make any disclosure as required by sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, as amended, in pursuance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029. On account of such non-disclosure, the Division Bench, vide order dated 01.08.2025, dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, though again granting liberty to the petitioner to institute a fresh petition after making the requisite disclosure, if so desired. For ready reference, the orders dated 1.4.2025 and 1.8.2025 are being reproduced herein below respectively: “1. Counsel for the petitioner after making brief submissions, prays for dismissal of the instant petition as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition in public interest. 2. The prayer made is allowed. 3. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. 4. It is clarified that the mere fact that we have granted permission to the petitioner to file fresh petition in public interest does not mean that we have examined the credentials of the petitioner or that in the facts of the instant case a public interest litigation would be maintainable.” “1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Though the petition is ostensibly filed in 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 judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029. 3. Hence, we decline to entertain the petition since we are not satisfied in regard to the bona fides and credentials of the petitioner. 4. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition after making required disclosures, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. We are constrained to note that this is the third round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. On perusal of the pleadings in the present petition, we again find that the mandatory disclosure as contemplated under sub-rule (3A) of Rule 1, Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has not been made. 4. It is evident that the petitioner has been shifting his stand- on every occasion as in the earliest round he had approached this Court in his individual capacity, later on he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a Public Interest Litigation, and now again he has instituted a writ petition without clarity that whether the reliefs are being sought in public interest or in his individual capacity. Such an approach amounts to misuse of judicial forum. 5. In absence of the requisite disclosure and in view of the repeated non-compliance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh with requisite pleadings, the same is accorded. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Liberty, however, is again accorded to the petitioner to institute fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law and after making the requisite disclosure as mandated under the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Anil K. Sharma Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad