JUDGMENT Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks from this court a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to initiate criminal proceedings against respondents Nos. 5 to 12 for an offence under sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act. 2. The petitioner, claiming to be the chairperson of the Madras Citizen's Progressive Council, has filed this writ petition before this court. Her complaint seems to be that respondents Nos. 6 to 9 entered into an agreement with the fifth respondent for sale of a particular property during the year 1987 and, according to the agreement, the value was fixed at Rs. 9,90,000, but when it came to be registered it was registered only for Rs. 3,50,000. The further allegation is that the petitioner informed the Income-tax Department about the illegal transaction and the suppression of the purchase money by the purchaser. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have not taken proper action even though the tenth respondent enquired into the matter. The petitioner claims that the economic condition of the country will be ruined and in the interest of justice, action should be taken against the tenth respondent and this sort of dealing should not be allowed in the interest of the country. The petitioner claims that this is a public interest litigation. 3. Mr. S. K. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterates the averments made in the affidavit and contends that the inaction on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, especially the Income-tax Department, will ruin the economic condition of the country, particularly when the matter was brought to their notice and an enquiry was conducted by the Department. Mr. S. K. Sundaram contends that for reasons best known to them, the Department has not taken any action. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to filed this writ petition as no private complaint can be filed under the criminal law. 4. I am not at all convinced with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner or the averments raised in the affidavit of the petitioner. The transaction between the respondents concerned is purely a transaction between themselves. 4. I am not at all convinced with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner or the averments raised in the affidavit of the petitioner. The transaction between the respondents concerned is purely a transaction between themselves. If the Income-tax Department finds out any error or mistake, it is for the Department to take action and it is not for the petitioner to come to this court and seek the aid of this court to take action. In a country like ours, there are various departments like customs, central excise, income-tax, sales tax etc. So there are enough enactments passed by the Central Legislature and the State Legislatures to prevent any offences committed. Even under the tax laws, there are provisions for the authorities to take action either by prosecuting the offenders or by revising the assessment proceedings once the authorities find out that somebody has been let off without assessment. In view of the clear provisions of the various enactments, I do not think that it is necessary for the petitioner to trouble herself by coming to this court by way of this writ petitioner for issue of a mandamus. 5. Surely, this is not a public interest litigation, in my view : See -Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal. It is purely a matter between the fifth respondent and respondents Nos. 6 to 9, a purchaser and the sellers. If any of the provisions of the income-tax enactment has not been followed, it is for the Department to look out and take proper proceedings. Surely, the petitioner has no right to come to this court praying to intervene in an affair, which is purely a private affair between the fifth respondent and respondents Nos. 6 to 9. Moreover, it is also not a healthy practice to entertain this sort of writ petition under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. Whether the sellers received the entire consideration or whether the purchaser paid the entire consideration is a matter to be looked into on evidence and it is for the Department to consider these things. It is not for the petitioner to come to this court and ask for the issuance of a writ of mandamus as if some legal right of hers has been taken away. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petitioner and it is dismissed.