JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. The petition which is ostensibly filed in the public interest, seeks a direction, inter alia, to the Chief Executive of the Zila Panchayat Banda not to issue any license to the sixth respondent to hold a cattle market over Araji/Plot No.128, situated at Majra Ranjeetpur, Village Panchayat Lahureta, Tehsil Naraini, District Banda. 2. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the public interest litigation on the ground that the petition is an abuse of the process and suffers from a serious suppression of facts. 3. A petition was earlier filed in the public interest before this Court by one Hari Bahadur Yadav (PIL 26689 of 2014), seeking to challenge the license which was renewed in favour of the sixth respondent for conducting a cattle market. By an order of this Division Bench dated 13 May 2014, the petition was dismissed for a failure to make the mandatory disclosure as required by sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court which reads as follows: “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 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 of the State? 4. These rules were amended following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029. 5. After the earlier writ petition was dismissed on 13 May 2014, the present writ petition was filed on or about 26 May 2014. The annexures to the writ petition include a representation at Annexure 20 inter alia of Hari Bahadur Singh Yadav, who was the petitioner before the Court in the earlier writ proceedings. Another representation by the petitioner in the earlier writ proceedings is annexed at Annexure 23 to the present proceedings. 6. The annexures to the writ petition include a representation at Annexure 20 inter alia of Hari Bahadur Singh Yadav, who was the petitioner before the Court in the earlier writ proceedings. Another representation by the petitioner in the earlier writ proceedings is annexed at Annexure 23 to the present proceedings. 6. There is, therefore, substance in the contention that the petition is motivated at the behest of the petitioner who had moved the Court in the earlier writ petition and who was unable to secure any relief since this Court was not satisfied with the disclosures made in the petition and the credentials of the earlier petitioner. 7. The petition also suffers from a serious suppression of facts. The petitioner has relied upon an order dated 6 May 2010 of the Collector, Banda, rejecting the application filed by the sixth respondent on 16 April 2010. This order of the Collector was the subject matter of another writ petition (Writ - C 28678 of 2010), which was filed by the sixth respondent. By an order dated 19 May 2010, the Division Bench set aside the order of the District Collector dated 6 May 2010 and remanded the matter back to him for a fresh consideration. Following this, on 25 February 2011, a no objection was issued by the Collector for permission to the sixth respondent to conduct a cattle market. In pursuance thereof, a licence was granted to the sixth respondent, which the Court is informed, has been renewed. It is inconceivable that the petitioner will be aware only of some but not all the relevant facts relating to these proceedings. 8. The petitioner has totally failed to move the Court with clean hands. The petition suffers from a serious suppression of facts. Besides, we are not satisfied that this is a bona fide petition which is filed in the public interest. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.