JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, in a petition ostensibly in the public interest seeks a mandamus directing the first and second respondents to initiate or conduct a high level inquiry against the illegal acts allegedly committed by the officers of the Allahabad University, the fourth respondent to these proceedings. 2. At the hearing of the petition, an objection has been raised to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials or his bona fides in filing the proceedings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent places on record a communication dated 3 February 2013 by which the petitioner was expelled from the University. Moreover, he has placed on the record a First Information Report which was lodged against the petitioner on 3 October 2013 for having misbehaved with a Professor and Head of the Department of Home Science. 3. Sub-rule 3-A of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules was introduced by an amendment following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.1. Sub-rule 3-A reads as follows: - "(3A) 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 e 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." 4. The petitioner has not made any disclosure as is mandated by sub-rule 3-A. On the contrary in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner states as follows: - "That the petitioner is having no personal vendetta with the respondents rather he is filing the present Public Interest Litigation for securing the rights of students of University as well as trying to provide through this P.I.L., by orders of Hon'ble Court, a proper use of the funds granted by the respondent no.2 for the welfare of the University and its students." 5. The petitioner has not disclosed that he has been expelled from the University. On the contrary he, in paragraph 3, states that he is a student of second year of the M.A. Degree course. There is no disclosure of the lodgment of the First Information Report. Learned counsel states that the petitioner has not been served with the order of expulsion dated 3 February 2013. Obviously if action was taken by the University against the petitioner in February 2013, it is impossible to conceive that he is unaware of being prevented from pursuing his studies. The petitioner again could not have been ignorant of the fact that a First Information Report was lodged against him on 3 October 2013 in which there are serious allegations of misbehaviour against the Professor and Head of the Department. Having regard to the non-disclosure of relevant and germane facts having a bearing on the bona fides of the petitioner, we are satisfied that this is not a genuine petition which has been filed in the public interest or a petition motivated by a desire to ventilate a bona fide grievance. The petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. We, accordingly, dismiss the petition.