1 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.3305/2010 Mohd. Rafiq Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 26-04-2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.P. Sharma, for the petitioner. This is the second inning of the public interest litigation (PIL) on the same issue concerning quarry licences in the land comprised in Khasra No.1148, Badi Khatu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur. Earlier, one Jahur Ahmed, said to be the uncle of the petitioner, had filed a writ petition (CWP No.1858/2009) wherein, inspite of the time granted by the Court, the writ-petitioner failed to implead the concerned allottees of the different plots in Khasra No.1148. Accordingly, on 01.04.2009, the said writ petition was dismissed; however, a liberty was granted to the writ-petitioner to file a fresh petition after joining the allottees. It is submitted that after the order in the above CWP No.1858/2009, the petitioner's uncle could not file a fresh petition, but while breathing his last in the month of September 2009, called his nephew, the present petitioner, and instructed him to take up the issue being a literate person. Hence, this public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner. While filing this petition, the petitioner has impleaded as party- respondents 10 allottees out of 36. The reason indicated on behalf of the petitioner for not impleading all the allottees is that unnecessary 2 inconvenience would be caused by impleading all the 36 allottees and, therefore, only 10 allottees have been impleaded in the representative capacity. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to how could they be impleaded in representative capacity; and as to how one allottee could represent the interest of another? On the particulars of the petitioner, the learned counsel informed this Court that the petitioner is a 60 years old social worker and member of a political party; but nothing has been indicated regarding his educational qualification and the source of his earnings. The learned counsel argued that it was immaterial and had not responded to the queries in this regard. This Court has categorically enquired about the credentials of the petitioner, in light of the verdict of the Apex Court. It has been replied that credentials should be read only as regards intention of the petitioner and, according to the learned counsel, the intention of the petitioner is for the public at large because right from the year 2002, the licences are being issued in breach of law. We are of the considered view that credentials and intentions are entirely different. Credentials are to be examined with respect to a particular person as regards introductory to his standing, credit, and trustworthiness. So far as the intentions are concerned, the same being of aim or design, would be reflected from the fact as to what the petitioner wants to achieve. Both cannot be combined together. We further find that nothing has been indicated as to why the petitioner had waited for so many years, right from the year 2002, when according to him, illegality was being committed. 3 From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that petitioner had no interest initially in this matter. He has filed this PIL only to fulfill the alleged promise given to his uncle; and otherwise he has no interest in this PIL. Accordingly, the intention of the petitioner is crystal clear that he is only fulfilling the alleged desire of his uncle. Moreover, it is noticed that one petition (CWP No.457/2009) is already pending with respect to the same issue, as filed by the same counsel. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a genuine PIL filed by the petitioner. In light of the above discussions, this petition in the nature of PIL cannot be entertained and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. [DINESH MAHESHWARI],J. [JAGDISH BHALLA], CJ. Praveen