JUDGMENT : S. MANIKUMAR, J. (Prayer: WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from installing bio-metric machines in Government Schools and Government Aided schools in Tamilnadu, till the transport facilities affording the students who are studying in Government schools and Government Aided schools in Tamilnadu.) 1. To ensure proper attendance of teachers, staff and students, government have issued orders dated 25.10.2018 for restoration of biometric machines in Government and Government Aided schools in Tamil Nadu. Sri Thirupathy Venkatachalapathy Educational Trust, represented by its Treasurer, and claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, is stated to have submitted representation dated 24.11.2018 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu, with copies marked to (i) Hon’ble Minister, School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, (ii) Hon’ble Minister, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai (iii) Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, (iv) Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and (v) Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, stating that adequate transport facilities are not available, computers are not provided, there is no infrastructure, toilet and lab facilities in schools. Villages do not have cell phone towers and therefore, until the above are provided introduction of biometric system has to be stopped. Further contending that the said representation is unanswered, instant writ petition is filed for the relief, as stated supra. 2. On this day, when the matter came up for admission, based on the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.225, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 25.10.2018, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate submitted that Government, after taking note of various details such as number of schools, staff and students, thought it fit to install bio-metric machines to ensure attendance of the above and sanctioned a considerable amount and machines have been installed in a phased manner. He further submitted that reasons assigned by the writ petitioner, for opposing installation of biometric machines are irrelevant and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate and perused the materials available on record. 4. G.O.Ms.No.225, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 25.10.2018, reads thus. “TAMIL” 5. He further submitted that reasons assigned by the writ petitioner, for opposing installation of biometric machines are irrelevant and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate and perused the materials available on record. 4. G.O.Ms.No.225, School Education (TRB) Department, dated 25.10.2018, reads thus. “TAMIL” 5. As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, Government after careful consideration of the proposals of the Director of School Education, to ensure attendance of teachers and students in schools, both Government and Government aided, estimated the expenditure as Rs.15,30,16,944/- and accordingly, granted administrative sanction. First phase of Rs.9 Crores has been directed to be paid for the year 2018-19 and the remaining amount of Rs.6.31 Crores would be paid as 2nd instalment. Director of School Education, Chennai has been permitted to install the machines. 6. Reasons assigned by the writ petitioner for opposing the installation of biometric machines in the schools that no transport, no water facilities, are absolutely irrelevant. Decision of the Government to ensure attendance and incurring huge expenditure cannot at any stretch of imagination be said to be against public interest. 7. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was reminded that there is no public interest, in the writ petition, he sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. 8. In one of the decisions made in WP No.3666 of 2019 between Kongu Nadu Saandror Kula Nadar Munnetra Sangam, rep. by its President Vs. State, rep. by the Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai and 3 others, dated 07.02.2019, this Court has summarised the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which we deem it fit to reproduce. 4. Of late, we can notice a growing trend in the abuse of public interest litigation. Public Interest Litigation was intended to secure the justice for poor and the weaker section of the community, who were not in a position to protect their own interests. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has time and again, observed that 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. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, has time and again, observed that 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. 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. {Refer BALCO EMPLOYEES’UNION (REGD) Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS { 2002 (2) SCC 333 }. 6. The present writ petition cannot be said to be in public interest. This petition seems to be purely motivated by a desire to seek publicity. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held that by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions, the queue standing outside the doors of the Court never moves which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly, they lose faith in the administration of judicial system. 7. A reading of instant writ petition would show that there is nothing in this petition which can be said in public interest. It does not advance any cause of the poor and down trodden. ..." 9. In the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that instant writ petition has to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed with costs, which we quantify at Rs.10,000/-[Rupees Ten Thousand Only], to be paid by the petitioner to the account of Juvenile Justice Fund, Director of Social Defence, Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of Tamilnadu, Kellys, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the District Collector, Namakkal District, is directed to take action for recovery, under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.