DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claiming himself to be the President of bharateeya Bahujan Congress has filed this writ petition as Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction against Respondent No. 7 in not lodging a complaint to 18th respondent against Respondents 13 to 17 for the alleged criminal acts and for a further direction that after registration of the case by 18th respondent, the same be transferred to the central Bureau of Investigation. ( 2 ) PETITIONER has alleged that public notice was issued by Respondents 16 and 17 in Deccan Chronicle calling for objections, if any, from the public in the matter of loan application of Respondent Nos. 14 and 15, which was under consideration of 8th respondent. It is stated that the petitioner addressed a letter on 2-5-2001 to 8th respondent with copies to Respondents 4, 6, 16 and 17 bringing the alleged irregularities and other misdeeds alleged to have been committed by Respondents 14 and 15, and, also bringing to the notice that Respondent no. 13 who is Director of Respondent No. 8- bank is a close relative of Respondent nos. 14 and 15, and, that they have agreed to pay 10% to 15% of loan amount as bribe. Petitioner further alleged that Respondent nos. 14 and 15 approached 8th respondent for sanction of loan for construction activity without obtaining any approval/permission from the competent authority and without verifying any documents, loan was granted by 8th respondent, who was not objecting to the unauthorized construction. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 16 and 17 are the advocates who have filed their counter- affidavit denying any role in the matter and saying that the writ petition is misconceived. They have also alleged that the writ petition has been brought by the petitioner due to certain personal animosity with Respondent nos. 13 to 15. ( 4 ) OTHER respondents have not filed their counter-affidavits. ( 5 ) PETITIONER has placed reliance upon the correspondence, which had taken place between the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner, as also Respondent No. 8. 13 to 15. ( 4 ) OTHER respondents have not filed their counter-affidavits. ( 5 ) PETITIONER has placed reliance upon the correspondence, which had taken place between the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner, as also Respondent No. 8. ( 6 ) IN such like matters, at the behest of a person like the petitioner, in a Public interest Litigation, directions cannot be issued directing lodging of criminal complaint by one of the respondents against the other respondents, inasmuch as the person aggrieved would be Respondent No. 8- bank, who could secure repayment of the loan, and, in case the matters are not dealt with properly by Respondent No. 8- bank, it will be for Respondent No. 6 or respondents 4 and 5 to take appropriate action in the matter under the relevant provisions. Cantonment Board is also a party to the writ petition being Respondent No. l 1, and, it is for Respondent No. 11 to take action as to whether the construction is authorised or illegal. Except for the allegation that petitioner respondent to the public notice and sent representation, there is no material justifying issuance of any further directions in the matter, more particularly, at the behest of the petitioner it will not be permissible for us to compel 8th respondent to file a criminal complaint. As such, we are not inclined to grant any relief and the writ petition is closed.