JUDGMENT : Vivek Agarwal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed by an individual claiming himself to be a general member of the village & Post-Sdhauna, Mehnajpur, Tehsil-Lalganj, District-Azamgarh presently residing at Avadhoot Bhagwan Ram Kushth Sewa Ashram, Jalilpur, Chandauli, District-Chandauli for issuance of "a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to enquire the matter against respondent no.6 under Public Money Recovery Act and etc. Act and also recovered the money from him, which was taken under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development (M.P.L.A.D.)/M.L.A. (Member of Legislative Assembly) Scheme in accordance with law." 3. We requested learned counsel for the petitioner to provide us some material in the form of an Audit Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General or any other competent authority, which may have been taken as bedrock for this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed on the basis of a news paper cutting published on 8th July, 2020 in a vernacular news paper-'Amar Ujala'. 4. When this Court asked learned counsel for contesting petitioner to show, as to whether, such news paper cuttings are admissible under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it has been published in a leading vernacular news paper, it can be treated as piece of evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that news paper reports are not admissible in evidence and this petition is nothing but a misuse of the process of the forum of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). 6. After hearing learned counsel for contesting parties and going through the pleadings, it is evident that provisions of Section 81 of the Evidence Act, even when read in totality then also the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 to a news paper report, cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein. 7. In case of Laxmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1988 SC 1274 , para-5, it is held that facts stated in a news paper are hearsay in nature. They are inadmissible in evidence unless maker of statement is examined. Judicial notice of facts stated in news paper cannot also be taken. 8. In case of B.Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1988 SC 1274 , para-5, it is held that facts stated in a news paper are hearsay in nature. They are inadmissible in evidence unless maker of statement is examined. Judicial notice of facts stated in news paper cannot also be taken. 8. In case of B.Singh Vs. Union of India and others; AIR 2004 SC 1923 (1924, 1929), it is held that petitioner not claiming to have any personal knowledge of allegations made against respondent in said representation and paper cuttings of news item and is also not aware of authenticity or otherwise of news item; the news paper report per se, not admissible in evidence. Supreme Court held that petitioner is busy body bent upon self publicity. No element of public interest involved in the petition and dismissed the petition filed with oblique motive as misconceived with exemplary costs. Supreme Court further held that it is open for court to examine the locus standi of petitioner to veil on public interest and see private malice etc. lurking behind it. Similarly, in case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam; (1999) 7 SCC 435 , it has been held that presumption of genuineness created under Section 81 of the Evidence Act does not give rise to any presumption of genuineness about news paper reports and it is not to be treated as proof of facts stated in them. Such statements are merely hearsay. 9. Thus, in view of said legal position, when petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim through any substantial documentary evidence and has not taken pains to do proper research on the subject to collect material which can said to be credible in nature, we are not persuaded to accept this petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), but are constrained to term it as a publicity oriented litigation, which needs to be curtailed and grafted in its root. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-