JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the order dated 12.01.2022, the G.O.(Ms).No.23, Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department and consequently, order of the second respondent P.H.D.C.No.C2/5907/2022 order dated 05.07.2022 and quash the same.) 1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the Government Order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Health and Family Welfare Department and the consequential order dated 05.07.2022. 2. The petitioner appearing in person submits that imposition of penalty for non-wearing of mask covering mouth and nose and the enhancement of penalty amount are illegal, as wearing of mask may adversely affect the person in inhaling and exhaling. Thus, the liberty of a person to wear or not to wear a mask cannot be guided or controlled by mandating to wear it and in case of violation of the mandate thereof, to suffer penalty of Rs.500/-. 3. The petitioner in person submits that such penalty has not been imposed for non wearing of mask in any other country, rather it is only in the State of Tamil Nadu that such an order has been issued. Therefore, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order making it absolutely at the discretion of the person concerned to wear mask or not to wear it. 4. We have considered the submission made by the petitioner in person and perused the records carefully. 5. The G.O. under challenge, viz. G.O.(Ms).No.23, Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department, dated 12.01.2022, is quoted hereunder: "APPENDIX NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by section 138-A of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1939), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the Rule published with the Health and Family Welfare Department Notification No.II(1)/HF/14(M)/2020, published at pages 1-2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated the 4th September 2020:- AMENDMENT In the said Rule, in the TABLE, for the entry "200/- (Rupees two hundred only) in column (3), against Serial No.(2) in column (1) and the corresponding entry "(i) Non wearing of mask covering mouth and nose as ordered by the appropriate authority from time to time" in column (2) thereof, the entry "500/- (Rupees five hundred only)" shall be substituted." 6. The G.O. quoted above was issued by exercising the powers conferred under Section 138-A of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939. The amendment was made to the Rule published by the Health and Family Welfare Department notification dated 04.09.2020. The amendment was to substitute the amount of fine of Rs.200/- with that of Rs.500/- in column (3) against serial No.(2) in column (1) and also in the corresponding entry (i), namely "nonwearing of mask covering mouth and nose as ordered by the appropriate authority from time to time in column (2) thereof", the entry "Rs.500/-" was substituted in the place of "Rs.200/-". 7. The challenge to the aforesaid has been made precisely on the ground that on wearing the mask, a person cannot inhale properly which would affect the health and accordingly, making wearing of mask compulsorily is illegal and so as the imposition of penalty for non-wearing of mask. 8. At the outset, there is nothing on record to show that wearing of mask would adversely affect a person or cause sufferance in inhaling while wearing mask. It shows that without a proper research, the writ petition has been filed. 9. The second aspect is also relevant and it goes to the root of the case. The wearing of mask was made compulsory by an order giving out specific period therein in view of the fact that Covid-19 pandemic had taken lives of not thousands, but lakhs of people. On the recommendation of the medical experts, wearing of mask was made compulsory when Covid-19 was spreading. It is only to save people from getting affected by Covid-19. 10. According to the petitioner, no other country has imposed a condition of wearing a mask and imposition of penalty. However, to substantiate the aforesaid, no material has been produced by him. The statement aforesaid has been made even in ignorance of the fact that many other countries also made wearing of mask compulsory and even by many States of our country. Thus, what we find is that the writ petition has been filed without any material or without making a proper research. 11. The filing of public interest litigation without proper research and in a casual manner has been deprecated by the Supreme Court time and again. Thus, what we find is that the writ petition has been filed without any material or without making a proper research. 11. The filing of public interest litigation without proper research and in a casual manner has been deprecated by the Supreme Court time and again. The Apex Court in B.P. Singhal v. State of T.N. [ (2004) 13 SCC 673 ], while dealing with a public interest litigation, dismissed it on the ground that it lacked material particulars and the averments were made by and large based merely on newspaper reports and not with personal knowledge. 12. In the Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that the Court has to be satisfied about (a) credentials of the petitioner; (b) prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information should not be vague and indefinite. In the case on hand, the averments are vague and unsubstantiated. 13. The Apex Court in the case of S.P. Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda [ (1996) 6 SCC 734 ], held that a person filing a public interest litigation owes it not only to the public, but also to the Court that he does not rush to the Court without undertaking any research to raise the issues in the public interest litigation. The Apex Court warned that “a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights.” 14. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, if we analyse the case, we find that the writ petition has been filed without causing research and even without any material to support the statement made in the public interest litigation. No report of the experts has been produced to indicate that wearing of mask may affect the health or cause difficulty to inhale. The casual filing of the public interest litigation otherwise remain at the cost of litigants who may get hearing of his case because of the waste of Court's time in dealing with such public interest litigation. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Madras is directed to see the compliance of payment of cost within the stipulated time and if payment of cost is not made, the disposed of writ petition may be listed again before this court to take appropriate proceedings in the matter. Consequently, WMP No.19622 of 2022 is also dismissed.