Allahabad High Court
Girish Chandra Pandey vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. ... on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 871 of 2022
Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Pandey
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Youth Affairs And Sports Govt. Of Idnia, New Delhi And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaleel Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Jaleel Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dev Rishi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/Union of India.
The present petition in the nature of PIL has been filed seeking following main reliefs:-
"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite Parties to conduct the enquiry by constituting the committee of the responsible authorities in pursuance of the irregularities committed by the selection committee in the trial for selection of Cricket players in the age groups of under 16 years, under 19 years and under 25 years as per averment made by the in the application dated 7-11-2022 in the interest of justice.
(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to strictly follow the Guide Line issued by the BCCI on 3 June 2020 for appropriate checks and protocols are put in place to ensuring playing field for competitive participation of players in its age-group tournaments and to counter the menace of age and domicile fraud in cricket in the interest of justice."
In this petition, the petitioner has indicated his credentials in paragraph No. 3 and a perusal whereof shows that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that he is a law graduate and a practicing Advocate and he has also not indicated that he is a sportsman or a cricket player, as the subject matter of this petition relates to selection of cricket players in the age groups of under 16, under 19 and under 25 years.
Further, from the above quoted reliefs, it appears that the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, however, in the petition, there is no mention that these respondents are State functionaries within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
In addition to above, from the annexures appended to this petition, it appears that the efforts, which are required to be made by a person prior to approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of a petition in Public Interest, have also not been mentioned.
Considering the aforesaid as also the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court regarding expression "credential", which on reproduction reads as under, in the judgment dated 05.11.2020 passed in P.I.L. CIVIL No. 19497 of 2020 (Narendra Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Urban Development And Ors.), this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition in Public Interest for the reliefs sought.
"The dictionary meaning of the word 'credentials' is the qualities and the experience of a person that make him suitable for doing a particular job. The Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary, 2nd Edition, explains credentials as the quality which makes a person perfect for the job or a document that is a proof that he has the training and education necessary to prove that he is a person qualified for doing the particular job.
Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, defines 'credential' a document or other evidence that proves one's authority or expertise; a testimonial that a person is entitled to credit or to the right to exercise official power.
Considering the aforesaid definition(s) of the term 'credential' and the law on entertaining the PIL what we feel is that for maintaining the PIL the petitioner in the writ petition, in brief, should state, with proof, that what he has done and what expertise he has on the subject matter of PIL as also that what exercise (sufficient) has been carried out by the petitioner before the administration prior to knocking the door of the Court and that what injury would be caused to the downtrodden of the society or public at large if cause under PIL is not espoused by the Court."
For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed. Costs made easy.
Order Date :- 9.12.2022
Arun/-
