- (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents prays for and is allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavit.
(2.) HEARD and perused the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. reported in, AIR 2010 SCW 1029. We are, prima -facie satisfied that the requirement under the amended Rule 3A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 2010, that the petitioner, who files Public Interest Litigation has to state on oath that the result of litigation would not lead to any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State, does not flow from the directives issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, apart from the fact that no person, who comes to the court can undertake or assert that the grievance if redressed by the court, would not result undue loss to any person, body of persons, or the State.
(3.) WE also take notice of the argument that the Public Interest Litigations are mostly filed against the State or its instrumentalities in performance of the duties towards public and therefore, if any such act has been done, which requires to be undone by the orders of the Court, some loss naturally may occur but on the ground of repercussion or loss likely to be occurred, the petitioner, who raises a genuine grievance before this Court, can not be deprived of hearing in such matters, nor the Courts would have to necessarily refuse redressal, because any loss would occur to any person, body of persons or the State Government but it would be the discretion of the Court that in such matters, what relief should be granted. Besides, the condition aforesaid is absolutely vague, as it does not define, the meaning of 'undue loss', which of course can not be assessed by the person filing the public interest litigation.;