JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was the sixth respondent to an earlier P.I.L. which was dismissed as withdrawn. But that apart, the petitioner has not made the mandatory disclosure as required under Rule 3-A of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules. The Rules were amended in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029. 2. In the circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the P.I.L. We, however, clarify that if an appropriate petition containing necessary disclosure is filed, the Court will consider whether it should be entertained in public interest. 3. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.