JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—Since an application has been filed by the petitioner to delete the name of respondent No. 9, the application is treated to be allowed without imposing any cost. Leave is granted to the counsel for the petitioner to delete the name of respondent No. 9 from the array of the parties by red ink. 2. This writ petition, in the form of Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the petitioner, claiming himself to be businessman of the consumer goods, out of his great affection to the old religious ponds situated at religious places in the city of District, Varanasi, which are sought to be filled up in order to raise construction in the nature of residential and/or commercial causing great ecological imbalances. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows : “(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 from releasing the sanctioned map of multistoried complex sought to be developed and raised by respondent Nos. 8 to 11 situate over Pond and its bank situate over Arazi Nos. 82 and 81, village Birdopur Weard Bhelupur Pargana Dehat Amanat, District, Varanasi respectively. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 from releasing the No Objection Certificate in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 11 for proposed construction over Pond and its bank situate over Arazi Nos. 82 and 81, Village Birdopur Ward Bhelupur Pargana Dehat Amanat, District, Varanasi respectively. (iii) Issue a writ order or direction the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent Nos. 8 to 11 from raising construction in the shape of Multistoried Complex over Arazi Nos. 82 and 81, village Birdopur Ward Bhelupur Pargana Dehat Amanat, District, Varanasi, respectively. (iv) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) to award the cost of the present writ petition.” 3. On exchange of affidavits and upon hearing the parties’ counsel at length, we come across factual and legal aspects to decide the case hereunder. 4. According to us, the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court is that credential of the writ petitioner is to be decided. (v) to award the cost of the present writ petition.” 3. On exchange of affidavits and upon hearing the parties’ counsel at length, we come across factual and legal aspects to decide the case hereunder. 4. According to us, the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court is that credential of the writ petitioner is to be decided. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, JT 2010 (1) SC 329 for discarding frivolous Public Interest Litigations several points are formulated in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the Public Interest Litigation. One of such conditions is that the Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a Public Interest Litigation. 5. We fail to understand as to what type of interest the petitioner could have, who is doing the business of consumer goods, in respect of affection to the old religious ponds situated in religious places of city and District Varanasi. However, even assuming that he can file Public Interest Litigation being a citizen of India, the other aspects are to be seen in support of the contention. 6. We find that the petitioner has annexed certain documents in the name of Advocate Sanjay Srivastava. The correspondence of all documents in between Sri Sanjay Srivastava and the authorities are annexed with the petition. On inquiry, we have not received material answer as to how the petitioner has got such documents to file this Public Interest Litigation from Sanjay Srivastava and as to whether this is proxy petition on behalf of interested Advocate or not. Apart from that, he has also annexed certain documents being the correspondence made between the authority and one Sri Chandra Shekhar Giri. These annexures are also made part and parcel of the rejoinder affidavit. On inquiry, we have not got a clear answer as to how these documents are being collected by the petitioner except that aforesaid persons are the residents of Varanasi. 7. Against this background, the question comes in the mind of the Court that if they are the residents of Varanasi, why they have not filed the petition of their own and supplied the materials to the petitioner to file this writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation. We have not got answer to such question. 8. The other information, which has come out from the submission of the respondent Nos. We have not got answer to such question. 8. The other information, which has come out from the submission of the respondent Nos. 8, 10 and 11, is that Sri Chandra Shekhar Giri is a representative of his rival contracting party, therefore, he is an interested party. In order to verify the credentials, this factum is very much necessary to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has come with clean hands as a citizen or social worker to invoke the writ jurisdiction in the form of Public Interest Litigation. 9. We are sorry to say that cloud has not been dispelled in the mind of the Court about the credential of the petitioner. Even assuming but not admitting, that he has a right to invoke the jurisdiction, on the basis of these facts, that constructions is going to be raised in Araji No. 82.2, which is admittedly not a pond, but Araji No. 82 is the pond, no submission has been made which is convincing the Court. 10. Petitioner has only made a submission before this Court that Plot No. 81 is adjacent to Plot No. 82, therefore, there is every likelihood and apprehension of encroachment on Plot No. 82, which is otherwise a pond. To that, the private respondent has submitted before this Court that the construction, which was going to be raised, is within the grove which has been inherited by the private respondents from their ancestors and the pond is not open for the public and it is encircled by the fixed wall surrounding the pond, there is no apprehension or likelihood of encroachment of the said pond, in any manner whatsoever. 11. Petitioner has contended that the pond cannot be a private property at all in view of Section 6 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which says that since the Act has been commenced by notification, the specified estates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in such State. Under Section-6 of the said Act, the description of the land includes tanks and ponds, therefore, such land, under no circumstance, can be said to be a private pond but a public pond. 12. Under Section-6 of the said Act, the description of the land includes tanks and ponds, therefore, such land, under no circumstance, can be said to be a private pond but a public pond. 12. Petitioner has strongly relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and others, 2001 (3) AWC 2398 (SC), wherein it has been held that material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enable people to enjoy a quality life which is essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 13. This judgment of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra) has been followed in a different judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court, particularly, in Adnan Ahmad v. Sana Ullah and others, 2010 (1) ADJ 448 (DB), wherein it is clarified that the decision in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra) is a guidance to protect the ecological balance. It does not necessarily mean that the entire procedure of law will be ignored. On the contrary, it has been held therein that when there is a procedure in law, it is likely to be followed instead of filing Public Interest Litigation and entertaining the same by the Courts. In that judgment, the Court observed that the matter is likely to be determined by Civil Court. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of affidavits of the authority further says that there is some sort of collusion in between the interested parties and the Varanasi Development Authority, otherwise on the basis of application dated 2nd September, 2009 no answer could have been given by the Lekhpal under his signature, to which it has been explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the authority was directed to submit a report within three days, he was compelled to supply the same within such period. In any event, we do not find that any cloud can be created on the basis of the same since it is an information with regard to nature of land in question, where the construction is going on. 15. In any event, we do not find that any cloud can be created on the basis of the same since it is an information with regard to nature of land in question, where the construction is going on. 15. Against this background, we are of the view that the petitioner, if wants to raise any dispute, he can do so before the Civil Court or any other appropriate forum. It is open for him to proceed in accordance with law or in accordance with Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but under no circumstance, we can pass any affirmative order in favour of the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—I agree. ————