JUDGMENT Bhaskar bhattacharya, J. 1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner's prayer is threefold; first, to initiate proceeding against the respondent-Government for committing contempt of this Court by not implementing this Court's order passed in a previous Public Interest Litigation, which was disposed of by this Court by directing the State-respondent to comply with the order dated 14th August 2012 within a specified period; secondly, for a direction upon the Government of Gujarat to reply to the RTI application dated 24th February 2014 at the earliest and to produce all the documents relating to the appointment of two Additional Information Commissioners by the government pursuant to the earlier order and thirdly, to declare the appointment of one of the two Additional Information Commissioners appointed pursuant to our earlier order to be illegal, in the event, the allegations made by the Respondent No. 3 against such appointed person are found to be correct. After going through the averments made in the application, we are of the view that the entertainment of this application will be a gross abuse of due process of judicial proceeding for the following reason: 1.1 In the application, it has been admitted that pursuant to our earlier order, two Additional Information Commissioners have already been appointed, but according to the petitioner, such appointment is not in "true spirit" of our earlier order. In support of such contention, the allegation of the petitioner is that the appointing authority, namely, the Chief Minister, the Leader of Opposition and another Cabinet Minister have appointed a 'Yes Man' and that the Leader of Opposition is "hob-nobing" [sic, hobnobbing] with the Chief Minister as would appear from the various newspaper cuttings. 1.2 Similarly, as regards one of the appointed persons, it is alleged that the petitioner came to know from a retired Deputy Secretary of the Government of Gujarat who has been made Respondent No. 3 in this application that there were serious allegations against the said appointed person and the petitioner by this application, has prayed for a direction upon the said Respondent No. 3 to produce those papers relating to such allegation. 1.3 According to High Court of Gujarat [Practice & Procedure for Public Interest Litigation] Rules, 2010, if a petition is based on news report, it must be stated whether the petitioner has taken step to verify the fact personally. 1.3 According to High Court of Gujarat [Practice & Procedure for Public Interest Litigation] Rules, 2010, if a petition is based on news report, it must be stated whether the petitioner has taken step to verify the fact personally. In this case, no such statement has been made. Moreover, merely on the basis of a newspaper report, no Public Interest Litigation can be filed, unless the requirement contained in Rule 3[d] mentioned above is complied with. It is preposterous to suggest that simply because a retired Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat told the petitioner something which the petitioner himself does not know in detail, a Public Interest Litigation should be entertained with a direction upon such retired Deputy Secretary to produce those documents. In public interest litigation, the petitioner must take the responsibility of swearing the basic facts either as true to his knowledge or based on information received from legally recognized source which he believes to be true. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty and another v. State of T.N. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1274 , a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in S. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under S. 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein. Moreover, it appears that in this petition, even the necessary parties on the subject have not been made party-respondent. 1.4 In this connection, we may profitably refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 913 where the apex court made the following observation pointing out the duty of a court before entertaining a public interest litigation: As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. reported in AIR 2008 SC 913 where the apex court made the following observation pointing out the duty of a court before entertaining a public interest litigation: 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 large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in 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. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. We thus, find that this Public Interest Litigation contains most irresponsible statements without any basis and has been filed with an ulterior motive and at the same time, is not maintainable and the same is accordingly summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.