ORDER : This public interest litigation has been filed wherein the prayer column reads as under: “Wherefore in view of the above facts and circumstances it is humorder of restraining the Respondents Nos. 3 to 73 from videographing and photographing of children and teachers near to their schools while they were removing their hijabs and burqa still the disposal of the main petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Petitioners claim to be social workers, associated with an NGO registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. However, no material particulars of the said Association have been furnished. Neither Memorandum of Association nor the byelaws of the Association have been placed on record to ascertain the averred credentials. They are not even cursorily referred to in the petition. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 happen to be the State of Karnataka. The other respondents i.e., 3 to 73 happen to be the news agencies and online media instrumentalities. 3. The petition is accompanied by media reports as well as a CD allegedly containing visuals of school students being put to hardship because of they being videographed and said videos being circulated for public consumption. The CD is accompanied by a certification u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the activities of the respondents in videographing the school children being asked to remove the hijab by the teachers and others as a precondition for gaining entry to the school premises amounts to enormous cruelty to the children and therefore, the respondents should be restrained from doing the same. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) This Special Bench is at the conclusion of the hearing of the hijab cases i.e., W.P.No.2146/2022 & other connected matters, in which the following interim direction has been issued on 10.2.2022: “10. In the above circumstances, we request the State Government and all other stakeholders to reopen the educational institutions and allow the students to return to the classes at the earliest. Pending consideration of all these petitions, we restrain all the students regardless of their religion or faith from wearing saffron shawls (Bhagwa), scarfs, hijab, religious flags or the like within the classroom, until further orders. 11. Pending consideration of all these petitions, we restrain all the students regardless of their religion or faith from wearing saffron shawls (Bhagwa), scarfs, hijab, religious flags or the like within the classroom, until further orders. 11. We make it clear that this order is confined to such of the institutions wherein the College Development Committees have prescribed the student dress code/uniform.” This direction makes it abundantly clear that wherever there is prescription of dress code, the students should adhere to the same, pending disposal of the said cases. This direction equally applies to school authorities as well, in the sense that they will ensure adherence to the prescribed dress code. If the students are asked to remove the hijab to gain entry to the classroom, that is perfectly in accord with the direction. (b) The essential grievance of the petitioners is that what all happens at the school gates namely videographing of the hijab wearing students, and the school authorities asking them to remove the same as a precondition for gaining entry to the classroom and further circulating these videos in the media & social media are “an attempt to create an adverse public image of the sect, community who have particular faith, customs, culture, identity etc.” Although petitioners claim to have given representations to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 for taking necessary steps against the same, not even a single copy of such representations is placed on record. No particulars as to when and who made these representations and to which officials of the Govt. they were made, are not forthcoming in the petition averments. Similarly, the specific officials who have failed to respond to these representations are not made parties to nor mentioned in the petition nor any explanation is offered for not arraying them as respondents. This is a serious lacuna in petition of the kind, inasmuch as the Apex Court has time and again insisted upon all material particulars being averred in public interest litigations and furnishment of prima facie proof regarding the same vide KALYANESHWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA (2011) 3 SCC 287 . (c) It hardly needs to be stated that there are Human Rights Commission, Child Rights Commission, Karnataka State Commission for Women and such other authorities who can be approached for the redressal of grievances of the kind. UNION OF INDIA (2011) 3 SCC 287 . (c) It hardly needs to be stated that there are Human Rights Commission, Child Rights Commission, Karnataka State Commission for Women and such other authorities who can be approached for the redressal of grievances of the kind. There is not even a whisper as to why the petitioners have not made any representation to these statutory authorities which ordinarily will have expertise in the matters like this and necessary personnel & agencies to collect requisite information from the quarters that be, and to grant redressal in accordance with law. The silence of the petition in this regard constitutes another lacuna, inasmuch as the social action litigants ordinarily have to exhaust all remedies availing in law before knocking at the doors of the court of PIL jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances are shown nor any prayer is made to dispense with such a requirement. (d) The above apart, there are other regulatory authorities such as Press Council of India, Registrar of Newspapers of India, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India or the like about whom no mention is made in the petition. Petitioners appear to have rushed to the Writ Court without making minimum effort to have their grievance redressed at the hands of these statutory authorities. The petition only refers to K.S.PUTTASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA (2017) 10 SCC 1 and about the discussion being taking place for putting in place a regulatory regime for protecting personal data, etc., through the Personnel Data Protection Bill, 2019 “…pending consideration of the Indian Parliament and may undergo significant changes in its current forms based on a report submitted by a Joint Parliamentary Committee… The PDP Bill is expected to come into effect in early 2022.” How all this is relevant, we are at loss to know especially when a Bill per se is not a law. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine. However, it is open to the petitioners to make appropriate representations, which if made, the jurisdictional authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law and without brooking any delay.