A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.

1. The first respondent, Selvi J. Jayalalithaa, was the Chief Minister of State of Tamilnadu till 27.09.2014. She having been convicted by the learned Special Judge in Special CC No.208/2004 on 27.09.2014 for the offences punishable under S.13(1)(e) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, resigned to the post of ‘Chief Minister’. First respondent filed appeal against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. By a Judgment dated 11.05.2015, learned Appellate Judge set aside the said Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. Legislature party of AIADMK having elected the first respondent as its party leader and the news having appeared in the press and electronic media, that her swearing in ceremony as the Chief Minister of the State of Tamilnadu would take place on 23.05.2015, this petition was filed under the brand name of public interest litigation, asking for a mandamus against, (i) the Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat, Raj Bhavan, Chennai - 600 022 and, (ii) the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai - 600 009, to desist from making any arrangement pertaining to the swearing in ceremony of the first respondent as the Chief Minister of the State of Tamilnadu, until the final verdict against the Judgment dated 11.05.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos.835-838/2014 and 17-22/2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru is decided.

2. The petitioner, an Advocate, enrolled during 2004 and stated to be practising in the law Courts at Kushtagi, Koppal District, filed this petition. The petition is not accompanied by any document, including a copy of the Judgment dated 11.05.2015 passed in the Criminal Appeal Nos.835-838/2014 and 17-22/2015.

3. Heard Sri S.B. Muttalli, learned advocate and perused the petition. The writ petition has been drafted in a most casual and cavalier fashion betraying lack of study, research and any kind of seriousness. At this stage itself, it is sufficient to notice the pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in the case of S.P. ANAND, INDORE vs. H.D. DEVE GOWDA AND OTHERS, (1996) 6 SCC 734. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

“18. Before we part, we cannot help mentioning that on issues of constitutional law, litigants who can lay no claim to have expert knowledge in that field should refrain from filing petitions, which if we may say so, are often drafted in a casual and cavalier fashion giving an extempore appearance not having had even a second look. This is the impression that one gets on reading the present petition. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court’s jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered 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. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the court must be careful to ensure that the process of the court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost ca