Judgment : M. Venugopal, J. 1. The petitioner has focussed the instant Writ of Mandamus, praying for an order of this Court, directing the respondents not to grant permission to any entertainer or agency to conduct Exhibition in the fourth respondent school campus at the school time. 2. The petitioner in his affidavit has stated that he is a social activist, particularly, rendering service to the school students who are studying up to 12th standard. After the Kumbakonam incident, wherever he comes, he insist the welfare of the school students, who are the Pillars of the future India. The petitioner in his affidavit paragraph 4 to the writ petition has categorically stated that on numerous occasions he has been watching Exhibitions by many private entertainers and Government during the school time, while the students are attending the classes for many months in a years. The speakers in the four corners are always on duty, which distract the young learners even at the time of examination. The stand taken on behalf of the petitioner is that he personally approached the fourth respondent Principal and requested him not to conduct Exhibition on the school days. But he did not turn up. Further, the petitioner has explained the Principal how the young students are spoiled and how they are distracted as the Exhibition stalls are put up in the school campus. Even in the examination time, the fourth respondent school allowed to conduct Exhibition, which would certainly have some negative impact on the young students and the administration did not bother about the same. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he sent a representation to the third respondent/District Educational Officer, Trichy under the Right to Information Act to know whether the fourth respondent school has obtained permission from the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct Exhibition in the school campus in the school days. Even now, according to the petitioner, they try to allow a private entertainer to conduct Exhibition in the second or third week of September this year. Moreover, the school students are also about to write their quarterly examination in the month of November. As such, the act of the fourth respondent will definitely distract the studies of the students and their standard will certainly decrease. 4. Moreover, the school students are also about to write their quarterly examination in the month of November. As such, the act of the fourth respondent will definitely distract the studies of the students and their standard will certainly decrease. 4. The petitioner also in his affidavit in the writ petition in paragraph 6 proceeded to state that he has given a representation to the third respondent on 22.08.2013 and to the respondents 1 and 2 on 30.08.2013 and in fact the third respondent has sent a communication to the fourth respondent on 26.08.2013 to furnish the particulars. However, no action has been taken till now to prevent the conduct of Exhibition in the fourth respondent school. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. It is to be noted that the question to be answered in public interest litigation is that whether the petitioner has suffered a illegal wrong or injury or his interests recognised by law and also that he has been prejudicial and directly affected in respect of a cause in issue. Admittedly, there is no statutory law on public interest litigation. It is the innovation of judiciary in our country. There is no two opinion of the fact that a public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection so that behind the beautiful veil of public interest and ugly private malice, vested interest or publicity seeking is not lurking, as opined by this Court. 6. A Court of law in a public interest litigation should prima-facie be satisfied that the information laid before it is of such a nature it calls for examination. However, under the guise of public interest litigation no one ought to be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others. 7. Be that as it may, on going through the averments made by the writ petitioner in his affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under the caption "Public Interest Litigation" is per se not maintainable because of the simple reason that there is no element of public interest involved in the matter in issue. Further, none of the students are said to have been affected by the conduct of the Exhibition in the fourth respondent school. Further, none of the students are said to have been affected by the conduct of the Exhibition in the fourth respondent school. Even the parents of the students of the fourth respondent school have no complaints about the conduct of the Exhibition. Viewing from any angle, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be categorised or termed as a person aggrieved or affected so as to file the present writ petition in public interest. Consequently, the writ petition has no merits. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2013 is also dismissed.