JUDGMENT : S.S. SARON, J. CM No. 6275 of 2017 Civil miscellaneous application has been filed for placing on record notice dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure A-4) for adjudication of the review application. 2. Notice dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure A-4) attached with the Civil Misc. application is taken on record, subject to just exceptions. 3. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. RA No. 80 of 2017 (O&M) 4. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking review of the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by this Court in CWP No.11874 of 2016. Along with the review application, CM No.2359 of 2017 has been filed seeking condonation of 38 days delay in filing the review petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. 6. The applicant/petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the officials respondents to protect the State interest and not allow illegal transactions of sale of plots by labelling them as gift deeds and thereby causing financial loss to the State exchequer. 7. The case of the petitioner has been that the Haryana Urban Development Authority ('HUDA' - for short) makes allotments of plots to displaced persons whose lands had been acquired. Such persons are known as 'oustees'. These plots were allotted out of the oustees quota plots. The said allotment of plots to such oustees contain a condition that the allottee would not sell the plot for a period of five years. The allottees of such oustees plots in order to circumvent the said condition, execute gift deeds in favour of the persons to whom the plots were transferred and by doing so, the condition of prohibition for sale of plots for a period of five years was circumvented. This according to the petitioner caused huge financial loss of stamp duty to the State exchequer inasmuch as stamp duty to the extent of 25% of the value of the plot was paid, whereas in case of execution of a sale deed the stamp duty would be much more. 8. The matter was considered in terms of order dated 07.12.2016, the review of which is sought. It was noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition i.e. CWP No.15660 of 2015 raising a similar grievance. 8. The matter was considered in terms of order dated 07.12.2016, the review of which is sought. It was noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar petition i.e. CWP No.15660 of 2015 raising a similar grievance. The said petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.08.2015 (Annexure P-12). It was directed that respondent No.5 in the said petition shall consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 9. The necessary speaking order has been passed by the Administrator, HUDA at Faridabad on 18.4.2016 (Annexure P-15). The operative part of the said order is as follows:- "I have heard all the parties and examined the record, facts of the case and relevant documents. I agree with the argument advanced by allottee and transferee and as well as by ADA. As per definition of section 122 of Transfer of Property Act 1882, there is no restriction of execution of gift deed out of blood relation. The gift deed can be executed by a person in favour of any person out of love and affection without consideration. That as per HUDA policy only administrative charges are payable for transfer of plot on the basis of gift deed within blood relation. Whereas, in the present case three plots have been transferred after charging the transfer fee as well as administrative charges. Further as per allotment letter, there was restriction only for sale for a period of five years and there was no restriction with regard to gift deed in the allotment letter. The transfer of above said three plots has been done rightly and legally on payment of transfer fee and administrative charges and the same does not want any interference. That no documentary proof regarding payment of consideration amount in lieu of the execution of the gift deed was produced by the complainant/petitioner or any other person/PNB, Faridabad. Hence, the complainant failed to proof the allegations of sale of plot raised in the present complaint. Therefore, the representation has no force being untenable and the same is hereby disposed of accordingly. The above said case was heard on 01.03.2016 and order was kept reserved and the same was announced today. This order may be communicated to the parties through registered post." 10. Therefore, the representation has no force being untenable and the same is hereby disposed of accordingly. The above said case was heard on 01.03.2016 and order was kept reserved and the same was announced today. This order may be communicated to the parties through registered post." 10. This Court in its order dated 07.12.2016, the review of which is sought, noticed that the condition of allotment letter was that sale of oustees plots given to allottees was prohibited for a period of five years and not that a gift deed or other modes of transfer were also prohibited. Therefore, it was considered that it was primarily for HUDA to take a decision as to what policy it has to adopt and follow. It was also said that in fact it could well be contended by the allottees of the oustees plots that the said condition of prohibiting sale of plots for a period of five years was arbitrary as; the allottees were deprived of their land by acquisition, then a part of the same land was allotted to them being oustees and yet a condition was imposed prohibiting them not to sell the plots that had been allotted for a period of five years. 11. It was in the circumstances held that since the issue was not before the Court, it would be for HUDA to take a rational and a balanced policy decision in the matter of transfer of plots by allottees who were allotted plots as oustees. Besides, in case the petitioner was aggrieved against the manner by which the plots were being transferred by way of gift deeds by oustees and thereby there was evasion of stamp duty inasmuch as stamp duty on gift deed instead of sale deed was paid, he may, if so advised, represent before the HUDA authorities for incorporating such a condition in the HUDA policy for providing a check to safeguard payment of stamp duty in case a plot allotted to an oustee was to be transferred. It was said that HUDA would be free to take necessary decision as to whether a check was required for the purposes of saving stamp duty on transfer of plots or even whether such a condition of five years for selling the plots from the date of its allotment was required to be continued or not. 12. It was said that HUDA would be free to take necessary decision as to whether a check was required for the purposes of saving stamp duty on transfer of plots or even whether such a condition of five years for selling the plots from the date of its allotment was required to be continued or not. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, had submitted that he would make a comprehensive representation before HUDA so as to prevent the transfer of oustees quota plots in a manner which deprived the State of its revenue by way of stamp duty. The petitioner, it was said, may, if so advised, seek such a remedy. The writ petition was disposed of. The question regarding locus standi of the petitioner to file a PIL was, however, kept open. 13. By way of the review petition, the same contentions as had earlier been urged have been raised i.e. there has been evasion of stamp duty by transfer of oustee quota plots by way of gift deeds by the allottees. Besides, the gift deeds that had been executed were in fact being executed for consideration, which was passed on to the allottes of oustee quota plots. The receipts (Annexure P3), in fact showed that payments had been made from the personal bank accounts of the transferees. One Bhim Singh an allotee of an oustee quota plots in his written statement, it is stated, admitted that the payment had been made by Ritu Raj (respondent No.7). Therefore, though the transfer of plot by Ritu Raj (respondent No.7) is labelled as a gift deed but same amounted to a sale. The same modus operandi was being followed by other allottees of the oustee quota plots by transferring their plots. The policy prohibiting the sale of oustee quota plots for a period of five years was in fact manifestly clear and it was being circumvented. 14. It is submitted that the applicant/petitioner had earlier approached the concerned authorities including HUDA officials by way of a detailed representation dated 1.6.2015 (Annexure P-11) qua the same subject matter for which he had been asked to again approach by way of a comprehensive representation. The comprehensive representation dated 5.1.2017 (Annexure P-3) was received in the concerned office of HUDA on 6.1.2017. The comprehensive representation dated 5.1.2017 (Annexure P-3) was received in the concerned office of HUDA on 6.1.2017. However, it seems to be an exercise in futility as it is highly improbable to expect a just and an impartial decision or order from the said authorities who themselves were involved in the said illegal transactions. The speaking order dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure P-15), it is stated, had been passed to cover up the misdeeds of the officials of HUDA who are involved in the illegal transactions and they cannot go against the interests of their officials. It is also stated that a reference has been made to the provisions of section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act which was clear that a gift deed is to be without consideration whereas it was not as such in the transactions that were being carried out. 15. The petitioner has now placed on record a communication dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure A-4) from the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad addressed to the petitioner regarding personal hearing. The petitioner was requested to appear before Administrator, HUDA on 11.04.2017 at 11.30 a.m. along with documents/records in respect of his contentions so that his representation dated 05.01.2017 may be decided in compliance of the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by this Court. However, it is stated that on the given date and time, he was asked to come on some other day which would be intimated. Till date, no such intimation had been received. Earlier also, it is stated that the said authorities passed the speaking order after about eight months and that too after a contempt notice dated 09.03.2016 (Annexure P-14) for initiating contempt proceeding had been issued. Therefore, according to the applicant/petitioner, the concerned authority was not taking the matter seriously and was just lingering on with the directions of the Court. It is also stated that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. The petitioner, it is stated, does not want any sort of popularity or any sort of gain. His main object is that innocent and poor farmers may be saved from the clutches of the land mafias; besides, the revenue of the State should not be allowed to be taken away by corrupt officials in league with private persons and in the process evade stamp duty. His main object is that innocent and poor farmers may be saved from the clutches of the land mafias; besides, the revenue of the State should not be allowed to be taken away by corrupt officials in league with private persons and in the process evade stamp duty. Moreover, it is stated that the private respondents in a very smart manner circumvent the conditions of allotment in respect of plots allotted to the poor allottees by paying only the first installments of the plots by way of so called gift deeds. In fact when consideration has passed in terms of money, the deed amounts to sale. Some details of the transferred plots have been mentioned. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. As already noticed, the locus standi of the petitioner to file such a petition was left open in the earlier order that was passed on 07.12.2016. The petitioner though has shown to be espousing a just cause of saving the State exchequer from the evasion of stamp duties payable by sale but in the PIL that he has filed, he is liable to comply with the conditions provided for filing PIL as contained in the Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 ('Rules' - for short) framed by this Court. Rule 2 of the Rules provides that no Public Interest Litigation shall be entertained by the Registry unless the petitioner has specifically disclosed his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit. Rule 6 of the Rules envisages that ordinarily, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) may be entertained on any subject of vital public importance, such as: (a) Bonded Labour matters; (b) Neglected Children; (c) Petitions from riot victims; (d) Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of persons belonging Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes by the others or by the police; (e) Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, forest and wild life; (f) Petitioners complaining violation of human rights. In terms of Rule 7 of the Rules, the Registry is entitled to verify the antecedents of a person, society or an association who invokes the jurisdiction of the High Court on the cause of public interest. In terms of Rule 7 of the Rules, the Registry is entitled to verify the antecedents of a person, society or an association who invokes the jurisdiction of the High Court on the cause of public interest. Where the Registry has any doubt on such antecedents, an office note to this effect is to be put up, except on the petitions which are received by post. 17. The effect of the said Rules has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013 - 4) PLR 367. It was inter alia emphasized that a petitioner filing a PIL has to specifically disclose his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit. The expression "specifically disclose his credentials", it was held, must, naturally, imply that he has to set forth what he does for his living, what public interest he has been espousing, the work done by him in that behalf, the particulars of any matter preferred by him as PIL earlier on which the Court has passed orders, etc. It cannot imply merely by writing a sentence that a person is residing in the State, is public-spirited and is, thus, filing a PIL. 18. It may in fact be noticed that in terms of interim order dated 14.07.2016 passed by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition, it was recorded that the petition had been filed in the nature of public interest and that no credentials or antecedents of the petitioner had been mentioned in his affidavit dated 01.06.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that an earlier petition i.e. CWP No.15660 of 2015 filed by the petitioner had been considered and decided on 03.08.2015 (Annexure P-1). It was observed that the maintainability of the petition was liable to be considered keeping in view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh's case (supra). Learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken time to address arguments in respect of the same. The petitioner then on 31.08.2016 amended the writ petition which was allowed subject to just exceptions. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner on 20.09.2016 prayed for time to file a better affidavit showing his credentials to file a public interest petition keeping in view the Division Bench judgment in Ajaib Singh's case (supra). 19. The petitioner then on 31.08.2016 amended the writ petition which was allowed subject to just exceptions. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner on 20.09.2016 prayed for time to file a better affidavit showing his credentials to file a public interest petition keeping in view the Division Bench judgment in Ajaib Singh's case (supra). 19. In terms of the amended writ petition, the contentions primarily are same that illegal transfers of oustee quota plots were being made by the allottees of such plots by circumventing the condition containing a prohibition for sale of plots for a period of five years. Besides, various private respondents have been added who it is alleged had indulged in the illegal transactions of executing gift deeds in respect of the oustee quota plots. 20. The petitioner in his affidavit dated 29.08.2016 which he filed with his amended writ petition mentions that he is in the business of sale of tiles and sanitary wares and was earning about Rs. 35,000/- from the same. It is further stated that he has no direct or indirect motive or personal interest involved in the case as he came across on going illegal grabbing of land/plots of innocent farmers, by way of fraud etc. by the respondents which was confirmed from the newspaper reports qua the same. He also took steps and posted representation qua the said illegal activities but to no effect till yet. 21. In terms of the said affidavit, it is evident that the same is completely silent as to what public interest he has been espousing and the work done by him in that behalf. Besides, it is stated that he is earning Rs. 35,000/- but it is unclear as to whether the same is monthly or yearly. No income tax returns have been filed to show what is his annual income from all sources. There is no mention in the affidavit of any public work that he may have undertaken or whether in future he was likely to espouse some public cause. It is in fact not even mentioned that he is a public spirited. Therefore, the affidavit that has been filed clearly does not meet the parameters for filing a PIL. 22. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file such a petition. It is in fact not even mentioned that he is a public spirited. Therefore, the affidavit that has been filed clearly does not meet the parameters for filing a PIL. 22. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file such a petition. The petitioner has not specifically mentioned as to what he is doing for a living except that he is carrying on business of sale of tile and sanitary wares. The requirements for invoking the PIL jurisdiction of this Court have not been met by the petitioner and we are of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file such a petition. 23. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioner that the allottees of oustee quota plots were transferring their plots by circumventing the condition prohibiting such transfer by sale for a period of five years is not shown to be a cause that can be said is being bona fide pursued by him. Even the contention that he is filing the petition for protecting the interest of the poor farmers is unclear inasmuch as in case the transferees of oustee quota plots by the allottees were being made by gift deeds for consideration then what interest of the poor farmers was being affected. The petition being filed for other reasons cannot be ruled out as it could well be a front for invalidating the gift deeds in respect of particular donors. Therefore, it would be unsafe to go into an exercise for invalidating gift deeds by a person other than the donors. The dispute, if any, in respect of gift deed would be between the donor and donee and a third persons cannot be allowed to agitate the same. In other words, those affected by transfer of plots by way of a gift deed may seek invalidation of a gift deed in accordance with law but not by way of public interest litigation. 24. In case there is an evasion of stamp duty it is for the government to take appropriate action for recovery of the same in accordance with law; however, a direction from this Court in this regard on a petition by a person who has no locus standi to file such a petition would be wholly improper. 25. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. 25. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. The petitioner may pursue his representation that is stated to have been filed by him. 26. Since the review application has been dismissed on merit, the question of delay in filing the review application is only academic and the same is also dismissed.