JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri H. N. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shobhit Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Rishab Kapoor, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2. The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and has preferred this petition in Public Interest. In paragraph -4 of the petition, he has stated that he is also involved in social work, but he has not disclosed his credentials or the nature of social work so far done by him. 3. The petitioner in Public Interest seeks quashing of letter dated 18.9.2020 of the Chief Engineer (Purchase) of U.P. Jal Nigam requesting M/s Crown Agents (India) Pvt. Ltd. to inspect M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata and issuance of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to permit re-inspection of M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited, Kolkata. 4. The normal rule is that a person, who suffers a legal injury or whose legal right is infringed, alone has locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction to avoid miscarriage of justice. The said common rule of locus standi stands relaxed where the grievance is raised before the Court on behalf of poor, deprived, illiterate or the disabled persons, who cannot approach the Court independently for redressal of the legal wrong or the injury caused to them on account of violation of any constitutional or legal right. These are mostly cases in public interest, i.e., cases on behalf of class of persons mentioned above. 5. However, the relaxation so provided from the strict rule of locus standi lately came to be misused or abused by unscrupulous persons seeking cheap publicity. Therefore, the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [ (2010) 3 SCC 402 ] observed that as the process of the Court is frequently abused in the name of Public Interest Litigation, all High Courts need to frame Rules to prevent such abuse. In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court Rules were also amended and Sub-Rule (3-A) was added under Chapter XXII Rule 1 w.e.f. 1.5.2010. In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court Rules were also amended and Sub-Rule (3-A) was added under Chapter XXII Rule 1 w.e.f. 1.5.2010. The aforesaid Rule reads as under :- "(3-A) 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 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." 6. A simple reading of the aforesaid Rule reveals that in addition to the other requirements mentioned under the Chapter for filing a writ petition, the person filing the petition in Public Interest should precisely and specifically, apart from other things, state his credentials and the public cause he is seeking to espouse. Therefore, disclosure of credentials and the public purpose sought to be espoused are also essential elements to be stated in initiating proceedings in public interest. 7. The petitioner in the writ petition, except for mentioning that he is a Lawyer and is involved in a social work, has not stated anything covering any of the above essential requirements. In short, he has not disclosed his credentials. 8. The dictionary meaning of the word 'credentials' is the qualities and the experience of a person that make him suitable for doing a particular job. The Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary, 2nd Edition, explains credentials as the quality which makes a person perfect for the job or a document that is a proof that he has the training and education necessary to prove that he is a person qualified for doing the particular job. 9. The petitioner herein claims to be a Social Worker, but in order to substantiate the nature of the social work he is doing or seeks to do, he has not disclosed any experience that makes him suitable or perfect for doing the said job and no document in proof has been furnished. 10. 9. The petitioner herein claims to be a Social Worker, but in order to substantiate the nature of the social work he is doing or seeks to do, he has not disclosed any experience that makes him suitable or perfect for doing the said job and no document in proof has been furnished. 10. Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, defines 'credential' a document or other evidence that proves one's authority or expertise; a testimonial that a person is entitled to credit or to the right to exercise official power. 11. The petitioner, in the absence of any documentary proof to establish his authority or expertise in doing social work, does not have the requisite credentials to initiate petition in Public Interest. 12. Considering the aforesaid definition(s) of the term 'credential' and the law on entertaining the PIL what we feel is that for maintaining the PIL the petitioner in the writ petition, in brief, should state, with proof, that what he has done and what expertise he has on the subject matter of PIL as also that what exercise (sufficient) has been carried out by the petitioner before the administration prior to knocking the door of the Court and that what injury would be caused to the downtrodden of the society or public at large if cause under PIL is not espoused by the Court. 13. In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Ranjan [ (2003) 7 SCC 546 ], it has been observed that the Courts are constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of disadvantageous people and therefore, can entertain petitions under Articles 32/226 of the Constitution of India filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who are in a disadvantageous position and are unable to knock the doors of the Courts. 14. The petitioner in filing this petition in Public Interest has not even disclosed that he is filing this petition on behalf of such disadvantageous persons or that injustice is meted out to a large number of people and therefore it has become necessary for him to come forward on their behalf. 15. It is well-settled that Public Interest Litigation is for ensuring basic human rights to the deprived and to secure social, economic and political justice. 15. It is well-settled that Public Interest Litigation is for ensuring basic human rights to the deprived and to secure social, economic and political justice. The Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [ (1984) 2 SCR 67 ] observed that the public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but a challenge to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community. It is only to protect such class of persons against violation of their basic human rights which is the constitutional obligation of the executive that ordinarily recourse to public interest litigation may be permitted. 16. In view of the aforesaid reasons and the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner is not a person, who has any credentials to move in Public Interest. Simply on the allegation that he is a Lawyer and a person involved in social work without disclosing his credentials and in the absence of the fact that the petition has been preferred in the interest of justice for large number of downtrodden persons who are unable to approach the Courts of Law, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this petition in public interest that too in a matter which does not involve basic human rights. 17. The firm, i.e., M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata in question was earlier inspected and was declared in Category 'C'. 18. The letter dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure -3) of the Chief Engineer (Purchase), U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow on record clearly stated that the inspecting agency, i.e., M/s Crown Agents (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi may inspect the aforesaid firm and it is only on its certification that the firm meets the standards provided the supply from the firm-M/s Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., would be taken. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that U.P. Jal Nigam is not directly involved in the purchase of any material from any firm, rather it awards contracts on turn-key basis and it is the contractor who makes purchases of the material from amongst firms prescribed by the U. P. Jal Nigam, provided there is otherwise no legal impediment. 20. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that U.P. Jal Nigam is not directly involved in the purchase of any material from any firm, rather it awards contracts on turn-key basis and it is the contractor who makes purchases of the material from amongst firms prescribed by the U. P. Jal Nigam, provided there is otherwise no legal impediment. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the letter of the Chief Engineer (Purchase) on record, since the purchases from the aforesaid firm would be taken subsequent to its certification by the inspecting agency, we do not find that this matter requires interference by us in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 21. Moreover, the controversy sought to be raised is one relating to award of contracts and the possibility of the petitioner being set-up by the rival groups cannot be ruled out. It is certainly not a petition on behalf of any disadvantageous group of persons rather and one on behalf of a competitor. 22. It is trite to mention here that a dispute between two warring groups is in the realm of a private dispute and is not allowed to be agitated as a Public Interest Litigation vide Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and another v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1989 SC 549 ]. 23. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable in public interest at the behest of the petitioner.