JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, by way of pro bono publico, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 693/2024 dated 23.04.2024 [Annexure-7] issued by Ranchi University, Ranchi, wherein the earlier direction for admitting students in the Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University for Academic Session 2024-26 in the Intermediate Courses as contained in Letter bearing Memo No. 690/2024 dated 20.04.2024 [Annexure-6] has been recalled in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and contrary to the directions issued by the State of Jharkhand and/or Jharkhand Academic Council. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi to immediately and forthwith issue necessary directions to its 13 Constituent Colleges to take admission of students in the Intermediate Courses for Academic Session 2024-26, especially because due to non-admission of the students in the Intermediate Courses in the Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University, Ranchi, education prospects and careers of 16,128 students have been put at stake. (iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi in restraining the Constituent Colleges from admitting students in the Intermediate Courses pertaining to the Arts, Commerce and Science for the Academic Session 2024-26 on the alleged ground of accreditation by The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (hereinafter referred to as 'NAAC' for short] is per se illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, because accreditation by NAAC has no nexus whatsoever with the admission of students in the Intermediate Courses in Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University, Ranchi. (iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts of the case: 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition reads as under: 3. (iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts of the case: 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition reads as under: 3. The disputes involved in the instant Public Interest Litigation allegedly pertains to arbitrary and illegal action of Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi in abruptly stopping and/or restraining the process of admission in the Intermediate Courses of Arts, Science and Commerce in 13 Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University, due to which further education prospects and careers of about 16,128 students have allegedly been put to a stake. 4. It is stated that Government of India promulgated a National Education Policy, 2020, wherein it has been proposed for changing the pattern of school education by introducing a new pattern of study popularly known as 'Higher Secondary Stage for Classes 9 to 12'. 5. Under the National Education Policy, 2020, it was provided, inter alia, that education up to Standard- XII shall be provided by schools only and the existing colleges which are providing Intermediate Courses i.e. 10+2 Courses in various streams namely, Arts, Science and Commerce would be phased out and the students would be linked to the schools in a phase-wise manner for taking education for 10+2 Courses i.e. Intermediate Courses. 6. It is stated that although, National Education Policy, 2020 attempted to phase out the Intermediate Courses offered by Colleges by the end of the Academic Session 2023-24 but due to various practical difficulties including inadequate infrastructures and unavailability of 10+2 Schools offering program for 10+2 courses, the said phasing out of Intermediate Courses in Colleges have not yet been achieved. 7. It has further been stated that a meeting was held on 23.11.2022 under Chairmanship of the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, wherein a decision was taken in terms of National Education Policy, 2020 to stop continuation of imparting education of Intermediate Courses in Colleges and has proposed for linking of the available seats to the nearest 10+2 schools of the said Colleges. 8. 8. However, as already stated above due to unavailability of necessary infrastructure including adequate availability of 10+2 Schools, another meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 28.06.2023 in which, it was decided that the phasing out of admissions in Intermediate Courses in the Colleges would be done in a phased manner and there would be no restriction upon the Colleges in taking admission of students at Intermediate Level. The minutes of the said meeting was communicated vide letter no. 170 dated 13.07.2023 to all the Universities. 9. In terms of the decision taken by the Respondent-State of Jharkhand, Respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council for the Academic Session 2024-26 has issued a direction to all the Colleges in the State of Jharkhand including Constituent Colleges for admitting students in the Intermediate Courses for the Academic Session 2024-26. While issuing directions to the respective Colleges to continue admission in the Intermediate Courses. Respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council restricted the numbers of seats in each stream for admitting students in the respective Colleges. For Constituent Colleges, the seats were restricted to 384 per stream i.e. 384 students to be admitted each in Arts, Science and Commerce. 10. In pursuant to the aforesaid communication issued by Jharkhand Academic Council, Respondent-Ranchi University, Ranchi vide its letter contained in Memo No. 690/2024 dated 20.04.2024 issued communication to all Colleges affiliated under it including Constituent Colleges to take admission for Academic Session 2024-26 in the Intermediate Courses by restricting the seats for admission up to 384 students per stream. The aforesaid letter issued by Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi was stated to be in accordance with the directions issued by Respondent-State of Jharkhand and/or Jharkhand Academic Council and the process of admission was to start for the Academic Session 2024-26. 11. It has further been stated that results for Matric Course was published by JAC on 19th April, 2023 and by CBSE on 13th May, 2023 and it is only thereafter, that the students could have taken admission in the Intermediate Courses offered by the affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University, Ranchi. 12. 11. It has further been stated that results for Matric Course was published by JAC on 19th April, 2023 and by CBSE on 13th May, 2023 and it is only thereafter, that the students could have taken admission in the Intermediate Courses offered by the affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University, Ranchi. 12. But, in utter disregard to the directions issued by Respondent-State of Jharkhand and/or Jharkhand Academic Council, Vice Chancellor of Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi vide its letter contained in Memo No. 693/24 dated 23.04.2024 has recalled its earlier letter dated 20.04.2024, wherein all affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges were directed to take admission in Intermediate Courses for the Academic Session 2024-26. In the said letter the only reasoning given by the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi was that the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi is in the process of getting its accreditation done through NAAC and, in view of the said fact, process of admission is being stopped for the Academic Session 2024-26. 13. It has further been stated that under the respondent-Ranchi University, altogether 13 constituent colleges are there. In the aforesaid 13 Constituent Colleges, in view of the direction issued by Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi, no admissions are being taken by the said Colleges due to which life and/or educational prospects of 16,128 students have been put at stake and only ground on which the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi issued restraining order for admitting students in Intermediate Courses is due to the pending accreditation done by NAAC, which is an autonomous institution of University Grants Commission (UGC) and the said autonomous institution has been created primarily for the purpose of periodic assessment and accreditation of institutions of higher educations and units thereof and the grant and/or non-grant of such accreditation by NAAC has no co-relation and/or nexus with the admission of the students whatsoever. 14. In the State of Jharkhand, there are five universities including Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi. In respect of all the aforesaid five Government Universities which are functioning in the State of Jharkhand as yet NAAC accreditation has not been granted in favour of any of the Universities but it is only the Respondent-Ranchi University, Ranchi which has issued arbitrary direction for stopping admission in Intermediate Courses for the Academic Session 2024-26 only on the ground of pendency of NAAC accreditation. 15. 15. However, all the other four Universities are permitting admissions in the Intermediate Courses for the Academic Session 2024-26 in its affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges and the only the Respondent-Ranchi University has restricted the admission in the Intermediate Courses of its affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges. 16. Even under Respondent- Ranchi University, there are certain Colleges which are Minority Institutions and in the said Minority Institutions also admissions are going on in the Intermediate Courses and no restriction has been put by Respondent- Ranchi University regarding admitting students in the Intermediate Courses of such Minority Institutions. The fee structure of the Constituent Colleges for Intermediate Courses are very meager as compared to the fee structure of private colleges including Minority Colleges and there is an approximate difference of fees of about ten times in both the aforesaid two types of colleges. But due to stoppage of admission in Intermediate Courses in the Constituent Colleges of Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi several poor and tribal students of the State of Jharkhand particularly, those residing in and around the Districts of Ranchi, Khunti, Simdega etc. have been adversely affected. 17. It has been submitted that when the petitioner visited Mandar College, Mandar for carrying out some social activities on behalf of Agarwal Sabha it was informed by the students seeking admission in Mandar College in Intermediate Courses that the admissions have been stopped due to illegal and arbitrary action of Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi and, in fact, the students even filed a detailed representation before the Vice-Chancellor of Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi vide representation dated 16.05.2024 but as yet no decision has been taken by Respondent- Ranchi University, for resuming the process of admission in the Constituent Colleges of Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi in the Intermediate Courses. 18. There are various newspaper reports which have been published regarding the discrimination which is being done by the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi in the matter of admission in Intermediate Courses of its Constituent Colleges. But no action has been taken, as such present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation. Submission on behalf of respondents on the issue of maintainability: 19. But no action has been taken, as such present writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation. Submission on behalf of respondents on the issue of maintainability: 19. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset has raised a preliminary issue about maintainability of the instant Public Interest Litigation as because, according to them, there is no involvement of any public element in the instant writ petition since and the nature of petition file by the petitioner cannot be said to be Public Interest Litigation, on the ground that the present petitioner as per the reference of his disclosure cannot be said to be aggrieved party and even he has got no cause of action. 20. It has been contended that the present writ petition has been filed in the garb of Interest Litigation for seeking admission of the students in constituent colleges of Ranchi University for the academic session 2025-26 in the intermediate courses. 21. The argument has been advanced on behalf of respondents-Ranchi University that the from the nature of prayer itself it appears that the present Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable since the issue herein is for taking admission in the Courses pertaining to the Arts, Commerce and Science for the Academic Session 2024-26, which cannot be said to be interest of people at large rather it is of the one or the other candidates for whom prayer has been made for admission in the courses referred above. 22. Further argument has been advanced that how can the petitioner be said to be a bona fide so that the present petition can be said to be maintainable when he is no way concerned with the admission and further admission of the students under the colleges cannot be said to be a lis in the nature of Public Interest Litigation having no public interest at large. Response on behalf of petitioner on the issue of maintainability: 23. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation is very much maintainable since the issue involve in the present Public Interest Litigation is of the bearing the students who are large in number and taking into consideration the number of students the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation is very much maintainable since the issue involve in the present Public Interest Litigation is of the bearing the students who are large in number and taking into consideration the number of students the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed. Hence, it is incorrect on the part of the respondent concerned to raise the issue of the maintainability of the present writ petition. 24. It has been submitted that the before the Co-ordinate Bench while passing order on 27.06.2024 the issue of maintainability was not raised rather the order was passed directing the Ranchi University to open the portal for admission in the intermediate course forthwith. As such, when the Co-ordinate Bench has already passed the order, the issue of maintainability is not fit to be agitated at the later stage of hearing of the matter. Response on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents:- 25. In response, learned senior counsel for the University has submitted that against the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the contempt case has been filed, which led the respondent-Ranchi University to move before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP being Special Leave to Appeal No. 16392 of 2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to pass order staying the further proceeding of the contempt case so as to High Court take a considered view after hearing the parties and as such the matter is to be heard irrespective of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. Analysis of the issue of maintainability 26. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleadings made on behalf of respective parties in the writ petition and counter affidavits. 27. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of parties, deems it fit and proper to see whether the lis is in the nature of Public Interest or adversary is required to be considered and for this purpose, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court along with the interpretation of word 'Public Interest Litigation’ is also required to be referred. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349 , at paragraph nos. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349 , at paragraph nos. 5 to 16 while interpreting the expression 'public interest litigation, has held as under: “5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression “public interest litigation”. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4, 4th Edn., “public interest” is defined thus: “Public interest.—(1) A matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 6. In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., “public interest” is defined as follows: “Public interest.—Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government.” 7. In Janata Dal case [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 ] this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331) “53. The expression 'litigation’ means a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression 'PIL’ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” 8. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p. 334) “62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.” 9. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.” 9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows: (SCC pp. 345-46) “98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.” 10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 348, para 109) “109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death and facing the gallows under untold agony, persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters — government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for the glare of publicity break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of genuine litigants and resultantly, they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. 12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs 13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined “public interest litigation” in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: “Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” 14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.” 14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu [ (1994) 2 SCC 481 ] and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills [ (1994) 2 SCC 647 ]. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran [ (1996) 5 SCC 530 ]. Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. 16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. 16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [ (1998) 7 SCC 273 ] this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.” [Emphasis supplied] 29. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.” [Emphasis supplied] 29. This Court, after having gone through the aforesaid judgment, found therefrom that the “public interest” as has been defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (Supra) means that the matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. 30. It is further evident from the aforesaid judgment that the reference of the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition has been made which defines “public interest” to the effect that something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government. 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court further in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 , has been pleased to lay down the guidelines as under paragraph 181, extract of which read as hereunder: “181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions: (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” 32. Similar matter has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1128 of 2021 [Dr. Bishnudeo Lal Dass vs. Union of India & Ors.], wherein prayer was made to set aside the 1st Part of D. Pharm. Practical Examination conducted alleged to be conducted in violation of mandatory provisions, but the said petition was dismissed on ground of maintainability vide order dated 17th June, 2021 holding that the general people has got nothing to do with the same rather it will only be restricted to the students who have appeared or going to appear in the aforesaid examination. 33. 33. This Court has considered the factual aspects involved in this case and on the basis of the aforesaid proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in addition thereto reference of credential which has been mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition, is of the view that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be party aggrieved rather it is evident from the description made in the writ petition that he appears to be no way related with the issue rather he has stated that he is the active member of the Agrawal Sabha, Ranchi, which takes various work in public interest and for the people at large. 34. We, at this juncture, is not going into the issue of credential since the issue of credential is only to be considered if the writ petition is held to be maintainable. 35. The same would be evident from the nature of prayer which is for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 693/2024 dated 23.04.2024 [Annexure-7] issued by Ranchi University, Ranchi, wherein the earlier direction for admitting students in the Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University for Academic Session 2024-26 in the Intermediate Course, issued in pursuance to the National Education Policy restricting the students to take admission in the Intermediate Courses for Academic Session 2024-26 has been questioned. 36. The pleading has been made that the writ petition has been filed on behalf of students who are seeking their admission in the different colleges under the Ranchi University. 37. It is, thus, evident that even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, the students who are seeking admission can only be said to be aggrieved and no others. The public interest litigation since has been interpreted by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases cited and referred above, and by applying the interpretation in the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not hesitant in holding that seeking admission in different colleges of the Ranchi University cannot be said to be public interest litigation rather it can be said to be litigation in individual capacity, for which the students aggrieved who are allegedly affected or would be affected can well approach this Court for seeking direction in this regard and not in the representative capacity. 38. 38. It also needs to refer herein that there is no resolution of the students, however, name of some students have been referred. 39. The question is that if the writ petition on merit will be dismissed then how the said order will bind the party that is a moot question to be considered reason being that the moment the writ petition is dismissed the other students may come forward that the judgment in this litigation is not applicable to them since one or the other students were not party to the present writ petition. 40. This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that the based upon the pleading made in the writ petition the same being the individual cause of action of one or the other students, as such the present writ petition cannot be said to be maintainable which has been filed in the garb of public interest litigation. 41. This Court, in view of the above discussion, is of the view that the present writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation is not maintainable. 42. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 27.06.2024 the issue of maintainability was not raised rather the order was passed directing the Ranchi University to open the portal for admission in the intermediate course as such, when the Co-ordinate Bench has already passed the order, the issue of maintainability is not fit to be agitated. 43. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that the Co-ordinate Bench has passed order dated 27.06.2024 which cannot be said to be ground for ignoring the issue of maintainability reason being that even though the Co-ordinate Bench has passed the order which was ad interim in nature but when the issue of maintainability has been raised, the same is to be decided at the threshold and if the petition itself is not maintainable then the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench cannot prevail upon the issue of maintainability. In view of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the present writ petition is not held to be maintainable. Accordingly, the instant writ petition filed in the nature of 'Public Interest Litigation, is dismissed being not maintainable. In view of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the present writ petition is not held to be maintainable. Accordingly, the instant writ petition filed in the nature of 'Public Interest Litigation, is dismissed being not maintainable. However, before parting with the order, it is made clear that the students, if so aggrieved, may approach appropriate forum by filing independent writ petition for its consideration on its own merit. Resultantly, the interim order dated 27.06.2024 stands vacated. 44. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. Arun Kumar Rai, J.-I Agree