JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ. 1. Heard Mr. Dipan A. Desai, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Sankul K. Kabra, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Gursharan H. Virk, learned Government Pleader appearing with Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents. 2. The present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by three persons, amongst whom the petitioner no.1 stated to be a resident of District Mehsana and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are residents of District Ahmedabad. 3. The complaint in the Public Interest Litigation is against the respondent no.4, which is a School located in the City of Ahmedabad affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education. 4. At the outset, we may note that it is difficult for us to comprehend as to how the petitioners residing in two different districts of the State came together to file the present Public Interest Litigation. Moreover, the petitioners have not disclosed their job, occupations, i.e. their credentials so as to enable the court to ascertain their motive for filing of the present public interest litigation, raising allegations against a private school, located in Ahmedabad, impleaded as respondent no.4. 5. The only statements made in paragraph–‘1 & 2’ of the writ petition is that the petitioners are ordinary citizens of India and that the petitioners are filing the writ petition in general public interest and the interest of all school going students, which cannot be said to be the statements of disclosure of the credentials of the petitioners and nothing, in our opinion, will turn on the said statements. 6. As per the rules framed by the High Court, for the presentation of the Public Interest Litigation, the first and foremost requirement for the petitioner(s) is to disclose his/their credentials so as to enable the Court to find out the purpose, motive or aim of the person invoking the public interest litigation jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Further, the allegations in the writ petition against the private school impleaded as respondent no.4 are that it is conducting coaching classes for entrance examinations within the school premises and the prayer is to conduct an inquiry/ investigation, inasmuch as, the action of the school in running coaching classes inside the school premises, is contrary to the Affiliation bye-laws framed by the Central Board of Secondary Education. 8. 8. We are of the considered view that simply for the reason that the petitioners have not disclosed their credentials and it is also not disclosed as to how three petitioners living at two different places in the State of Gujarat had joined together, the present public interest litigation cannot be entertained, being in violation of the Rules framed by the High Court for maintaining Public Interest Litigation. 9. However, we may also record that a different set of persons had earlier filed a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation namely Writ Petition (PIL) No.4 of 2026, with the same allegations against the same school, impleaded as respondent no.4 herein. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this court while noticing that the petitioners therein had not disclosed their credentials, vide judgment and order dated 27.01.2026 while granting liberty to the said petitioners. The statement made by the petitioners herein in paragraph–‘7’ of the present writ petition is that:- “7. That to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners, writ petition (PIL) No.4 of 2026 had been filed raising a similar issue before this Hon’ble Court. By order dated 27.01.2026, Writ Petition (PIL) No.4 of 2026 was permitted to be withdrawn. A copy of order dated 27.1.2026 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.4 of 2026 is at Annexure J. The petitioners came to know about the PIL from news channels and by making further inquiry thereafter. The petitioners have taken all reasonable care to gather information before making this statement.” 10. From the above, at least, it is evident that the petitioners were well aware of the fact that for maintaining a Public Interest Litigation in this court, there is a necessity for disclosing their credentials. It is clear that the petitioners have deliberately made a vague statement in the writ petition about their identity and have intentionally seek to conceal the information regarding their job, occupation etc. When this was pointed out to the learned advocate for the petitioners, he made a vehement appeal to seek withdrawal with the liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. 11. We are afraid to grant such a permission noticing that repeated petitions are being filed by different set of persons against the same entity namely the respondent no.4 – School that too without disclosing their credentials. 12. 11. We are afraid to grant such a permission noticing that repeated petitions are being filed by different set of persons against the same entity namely the respondent no.4 – School that too without disclosing their credentials. 12. From the facts noted herein above, it is evident that the petitioners herein are busybodies, who seem to be in collusion with the other persons who have filed previous writ petition targeting one school impleaded as respondent no.4 herein, in a planned manner. One set of persons withdrew their writ petition when it was pointed out by the Court that they have not disclosed their credentials and another set of persons surfaced in the present petition to agitate the same contentions and seek relief to initiate inquiry against the respondent no.4. 13. The laudable cause of providing a forum of public interest litigation created through the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Courts, in the country, is with the sole purpose to address the issues which are for the larger cause of the public, whose fundamental or legal rights are violated by the State or its instrumentalities. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 has discussed the jurisprudence pertaining to the source, development and phases of PIL jurisdiction in India, and to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the following relevant directions were issued at paragraph–‘181’:- “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) … … … … (3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) … … … … (7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. (5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) … … … … (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 court 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.” 14. Further, the High Court of Gujarat providing for the Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, states in Chapter-II as under:- “Chapter II – Public Interest Litigation Procedure & Convention Rule 3:- A Writ Petition filed in the High Court in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, shall as far as possible be in Proforma - I and shall disclose - (a) the petitioner's social standing, professional status and his antecedents, particularly with respect to his credentials for maintaining the petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. (b) nature and extent of the personal interest of the petitioner, if any, involved in the cause. (c) … … … (d) … … … (e) … … … (f) … … … (g) … … … (h) … … … (i) The petition must further contain averments as to how the public interest is involved. (j) that the cause involved is purely in public intent and that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the Public Interest Litigation. (k) … … …” Rule–3.A:- The Court may impose exemplary costs or adopt other appropriate methods to ensure curbing of frivolous Petitions, wrongly describing them as Public Interest Petitions filed by busy bodies for extraneous consideration or ulterior motive. Rule–4:- A Writ Petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation shall contain a statement/declaration by the petitioner whether to his knowledge, issue raised was previously dealt with or decided by the High Court and whether a similar or identical petition was filed earlier by the petitioner or by any other person to his knowledge, and that he had taken all reasonable care to gather information before making such a statement. In case such an issue was dealt with or a similar or identical petition was filed earlier, its status or the result thereof must be stated.” 15. Considering the above, noticing the manner in which repeated Public Interest petitions are being filed by different persons against one school that too on the premise that the Affiliation bye-laws framed by the Central Board of Secondary Education as being violated, we find it fit in the interest of maintaining the sanctity of the PIL jurisprudence to dismiss the writ petition with cost, to act as a deterrent for any future applicant to approach this Court, in a similar matter. 16. We, therefore, dismiss the present writ petition with the cost of Rs.60,000/- [Rupees Sixty Thousand Only], to be distributed amongst the three petitioners, which shall be deposited by them jointly, within a period of three weeks from today before the Registrar General of the High Court. The cost so deposited shall be transmitted to the accounts of the High Court Legal Services Authority. In case of failure to deposit, recovery to the same shall be made as an arrears of land revenue.