JUDGMENT The petitioner who claims to be public spirited person has in these proceedings instituted in the form of a public interest litigation sought a mandamus (i) for the registration of a First Information Report in pursuance of letters dated 24 April 2015 and 25 May 2015 addressed by the Under Secretary to the State Government to the Director, Social Welfare; (ii) an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or Special Investigation Team in respect of educational institutions involved in obtaining scholarships; and (iii) restraining the institutions from imparting education. 2. The primary basis of the petition as the reliefs would indicate are the two letters which were addressed by the Under Secretary to the State Government to the Director, Social Welfare on 24 April 2015 and 25 May 2015. Apart from this, the petitioner had relied upon a file note prepared by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department on 13 July 2015. We are not at the present stage satisfied that a case has been made out by the petitioner in a public interest litigation for a direction of the nature as prayed. The three documents would in fact indicate that the State Government has been seized of the issue which is sought to be espoused in the writ proceeding. The petitioner has not made any effort to pursue the line of inquiry by seeking information on what is the status of the proceedings which were directed to be initiated in pursuance of the letters dated 24 April 2015 and 25 May 2015. 3. Increasingly, it is becoming a matter of practice to institute public interest litigation on the basis of newspaper reports. The petitioner who moves the Court in such a proceeding must also discharge the burden which is cast on any other petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of at least making out a prima facie case for invoking the intervention of the Court. The petitioner has not explained why recourse to the normal remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been pursued. 4. Hence, particularly when the record would indicate that the Principal Secretary had issued directions to the Director, Social Welfare, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate or proper for the Court to intervene at this stage. 4. Hence, particularly when the record would indicate that the Principal Secretary had issued directions to the Director, Social Welfare, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate or proper for the Court to intervene at this stage. However, we leave it open to the petitioner, without in any manner recognising or conferring locus upon him, to pursue such remedies as are ordinarily available in law in respect of the grievance which is raised in these proceedings. 5. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ……………….