JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. The present writ petition professedly filed in public interest by petitioner, being a practising Lawyer, for following relief: (a) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondents 1 & 2 to get all security forces/personnel/battalions vacated from all educational institutions of the Kashmir valley. (b) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondents 3, 4, & 5 to make education institutions viable by rectifying the damage, if any, caused by occupation of security forces/personnel/battalions etc. (c) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondent No. 3 to draft and formulate a comprehensive policy by which no educational institute shall be occupied or used as temporary shelter by security forces/personnel/battalions etc. in future. (d) A writ of Prohibition, directing respondent No. 2, 6 & 8 to prohibit security forces/personnel/battalions etc. from occupying educational institutes of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in future under whatever extra ordinary circumstances/situation. Writ petition is primarily filed on the ground that the security forces are using the school buildings for shelter/accommodation purposes in Kashmir Valley, which has far reaching consequences on education system of the State. Petitioner is seeking direction in the name of respondents to get security forces/personnel/battalions vacated from all educational institutions and consequently pave a way for students to achieve the education, which is their Constitutional guaranteed right as provided under Article 13, 14, 15, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 20, 21, and 23 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957. Petitioner is also seeking direction against respondents 3, 4 & 5 to make educational institutions viable by rectifying damage caused by occupation of security forces/personnel/battalions, with further direction to Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Education Department, to draft and formulate a comprehensive policy, by which no educational institute shall be occupied or used as temporary shelter by security forces/personnel/battalions etc. in future. 2. For seeking aforesaid reliefs, petitioner has supplied the material in the shape of pleadings in paragraphs 09 and 10 of the petition, which has reference to a news item carried in daily newspaper on 24th August, 2016 under the headline "BIZARRE: JK GOVT. WANTS CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS, BUT ALLOWS CENTRAL FORCES TO OCCUPYTHEM". This news items refers to occupation of S.P. Higher Secondary School, Government Higher Secondary School, Rajbagh and D.A.V. School, Jawahar Nagar. Petitioner has not supplied any material with reference to occupation of any other educational institution in the Kashmir Valley. WANTS CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS, BUT ALLOWS CENTRAL FORCES TO OCCUPYTHEM". This news items refers to occupation of S.P. Higher Secondary School, Government Higher Secondary School, Rajbagh and D.A.V. School, Jawahar Nagar. Petitioner has not supplied any material with reference to occupation of any other educational institution in the Kashmir Valley. 3. Petitioner, an Advocate, has not appeared, so as to enable the Court to ask him about compliance of requirements for filing of a PIL. Perusal of pleadings of the PIL reveal that petitioner has not undertaken and fulfilled the requirements in terms of PIL Rules. 4. The tool of public interest litigation has been devised to reach injustice wherever it is found overcoming financial, economic, geographical and locus standi barriers so as to strengthen the hand of social action groups. The petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed without any empirical research and in a totally casual manner. As a result averments have been made, which have no authenticity; without any supportive documentary evidence. In fact averments are based on false and incorrect assumption. Obviously, the only legal inference that could be raised by the Court is that the PIL has been filed not for public interest, but to gain cheap publicity which constitutes an oblique motive. The statements made in these petitions are based on newspaper cutting. Before coming to the Court through the PIL, the petitioner has not even bothered to verify the newspaper reports from any reliable source. No doubt a mere letter/news item, can be treated as a PIL but it does not arm the petitioner with a right to approach the court without placing authentic information before the Courts. 5. Mr. Ajaz Ahmad Bhat, Director, School Education, Kashmir, who is present in the Court, when asked about the occupation of the school buildings by the security forces in the Kashmir Valley, he has stated that no such school as made mention of in the PIL or for that matter any other school in the Kashmir Valley, is under occupation of the security forces. In such circumstances, the statement made by petitioner in the PIL is false and incorrect, the element of professed public interest is lost and it is only for publicity interest. 6. The Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction does not give right to come to the Court with bald statements unsupported by material particulars and documents. In such circumstances, the statement made by petitioner in the PIL is false and incorrect, the element of professed public interest is lost and it is only for publicity interest. 6. The Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction does not give right to come to the Court with bald statements unsupported by material particulars and documents. This Jurisdiction has been carved out by judicial creativity in order to provide access to poor, underprivileged, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized sections of the society, particularly so when such persons or class of persons, by reason of their poverty, helplessness, or on account of disability being socially or economically in a disadvantaged position cannot come to the Court. Of course, is has been expanded to matters where the executive is acting in violation of law affecting general masses. But the basic factor remains that only such petitions are required to be entertained where the petitioner(s) is/are acting bona fide and not for any ulterior motive, personal gain, private profit, political motivation or other oblique or extraneous considerations. The scope of public interest litigation has been succinctly summarized by the Supreme Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546 , in paragraphs 41 to 48. Broadly speaking, it has been observed in the aforesaid judgment that the branch of proceedings known as "social action litigation" or "public interest litigation" was evolved with a view to render complete justice to the poorest of poor, underprivileged, the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children, those handicapped by ignorance, indigence and illiteracy and other downtrodden persons who have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. It expanded its wings in course of time and Courts in pro bono publico granted relief to inmates of prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trials, maintenance of human dignity and covered several other areas. But with the passage of time, things started taking different shapes. The process was sometimes abused. Proceedings were initiated in the name of public interest litigation for vindicating private disputes. Some petitions were publicity oriented. A balance was, therefore, required to be struck. The Courts started exercising greater care and caution in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction of PIL. The Courts insisted on furnishing of security before granting injunction and imposing very heavy costs when a petition was found to be bogus or filed with oblique motive. Some petitions were publicity oriented. A balance was, therefore, required to be struck. The Courts started exercising greater care and caution in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction of PIL. The Courts insisted on furnishing of security before granting injunction and imposing very heavy costs when a petition was found to be bogus or filed with oblique motive. In paragraph 52 of the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court relief upon its earlier opinion expressed in BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 , and in paragraph 53 ruled that "we do not intend to say that the dicta of this Court in BALCO Employees' Union contain the last words. But the same may be considered to be in the nature of guidelines for entertaining a public interest litigation". We would place reliance on paragraphs 78, 79 and 80 of the Supreme Court judgment in BALCO Employees' Union case which reads as under: 78. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in case connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof. S.B. Sa the has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised in the following words: 'PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one of more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely descriptive: - Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour, under trial prisoners, prison inmates). - Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour, unorganized labour etc.). - Where judicial law-making is necessary to avoid exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of the prostitutes). - Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievance redressal forums). - Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardize people's right to natural resources such as air or water.' 79. - Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary, existence of grievance redressal forums). - Where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardize people's right to natural resources such as air or water.' 79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive, (emphasis added) 80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to reemphasize the parameters within which PIL can be re-sorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the Court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re-emphasize the same". 7. Thus in paragraph 80 of the judgment in BALCO Employees' Union case (supra) the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the Court. And in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down that the dicta in BALCO Employee's Union case be considered to be in the nature of guidelines for entertaining a public interest litigation. 8. Following the dicta in BALCO Employees' Union case and applying the same to the case in hand this petition on the face of it is not maintainable since it is not meant to protect basic human rights of the weak or disadvantaged who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. On the other hand, given the nature of the controversy sought to be raked, we are convinced that it has been filed for oblique and extraneous considerations. On the other hand, given the nature of the controversy sought to be raked, we are convinced that it has been filed for oblique and extraneous considerations. There is catena of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court where such practice has not only been deplored, but people filing such petitions have been burdened with costs. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision rendered in the cases of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 . In paragraphs 143 to 158, the judgment contains, reference to its earlier decisions in BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 ; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87; Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharash Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990) 4 SCC 449 ; Neetu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC 614 ; S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, (1996) 6 SCC 734 ; Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 330 ; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590 ; Charan Lal Sahu v. Zail Singh, (1984) 1 SCC 390 ; J. Jayalalitha v. Govt., of T.N., (1999) 1 SCC 53 ; and Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra (2007) 14 SCC 281 wherein the Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public interest petitions by monetary and nonmonetary methods. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (supra) it was observed that Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court found that the petition was devoid of public interest and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 10,000. In Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment observed as under: "It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. 10,000. In Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment observed as under: "It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters-government or private, person awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenue expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system." While dealing with the case State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), the Supreme Court issued certain directions to frame rules for filing of PILs which are in place within these jurisdiction. Their lordships also issued directions for observance of the High Courts, which included the following two directions: "(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 Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busy-bodies 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." 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court coupled with our finding that this petition has been filed half heartedly and with oblique motive, we deem it appropriate to decline the prayer made by the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with the connected MPs. Taking a lenient view, we do not impose any costs on the petitioner keeping in view that the petitioner, an advocate, is at the threshold of his career. However we would like to observe that he should remain careful in future and up hold the highest tradition of the legal profession. Accordingly the proceedings in these so called PIL petition are closed. However, with reference to submission of representation, we deem it appropriate to ask the Chief Secretary of the State, to consider the representation and dispose of the same in light of applicable norms and rules within two months.