- (1.) The petition, which has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of a part of sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, which has been framed by this Court, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.1 for governing the filing of petitions in public interest. Sub-rule (3-A) was introduced with effect from 1 May 2010 and reads as follows: "(3-A). In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this Chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."
(2.) The petitioner has challenged a portion of this rule. The relief which has been sought, is thus: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari striking down "or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State" from sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules and declaring it as ultra vires."
(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of sub-rule (3-A) which requires that a petitioner seeking to file a public interest litigation, must state on affidavit that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State.;