ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. This petition styled Public Interest Litigation is grounded on allegations that:- the 2nd respondent created documents by forging letters of allotment/reconveyance, possession letter dated 21.8.1998 and registered sale deed dated 26.6.1998, as if executed by the 1st respondent-Bangalore Development Authority in short 'BDA', in favour of R. Rangaiah, father of the 2nd respondent; the 2nd respondent in the premise of the alleged Will dated 6.2.1998 executed by R. Rangaiah, secured transfer of khatha of the petition schedule immovable property, being site No. 2098, 'D' Block, 8th Main Road, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore -560 010 measuring East to west 45 feet, North to South 30 feet; the 2nd respondent conveyed the petition schedule property in favour of respondents 3 and 4 describing himself as absolute owner of the said site, under a sale deed dated 6.8.2012; and the purchasers secured necessary documentation from the 1st respondent based upon the said conveyance deed. According to the petitioner, who resides in a nearby locality, having applied to the 1st respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was issued with a reply dated 14.2.2014 stating that since documents were not available, copies could not be furnished. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that respondents 2 to 4 colluded together and created documents to indicate absolute ownership of the property bearing No. 2099/A, 'D' Block, 8th Main Road, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Petitioner claims to have lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police at Subramanyanagar Police Station on 10.6.2014, as also with Commissioner of Police on 11.6.2014, following which issued a legal notice dated 17.5.2014 to the 1st respondent. Hence, the following reliefs: a) Issue writ of Mandamus or direction to the respondent no. 1 to take necessary steps to recover the site properties from the respondents 2 to 4 and also to initiate criminal cases against them, b) And direction to the respondent no. 1, directing respondent no. 1 to clear the encroachment of the schedule site property and to take the possession, c) Any other order or relief of writ, direction, etc., as this hon'ble court deems to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equality. 2. 1, directing respondent no. 1 to clear the encroachment of the schedule site property and to take the possession, c) Any other order or relief of writ, direction, etc., as this hon'ble court deems to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equality. 2. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of respondents 3 and 4 inter alia denying the allegations and contending that the petitioner did intend to purchase the petition schedule property from the 2nd respondent and when not successful, due to disappointment and vengeance brought the television media persons near the site in question, gave an interview to Samya New Channel and TV9 News Channel projecting that the property belonging to BDA/Government was grabbed by the respondents in connivance with the 2nd respondent and that the respondent being a professor in R.V. Engineering college and Engineer in Doordarshan purchased the disputed property at a throw away price. In addition it is stated that petitioner did make known of his intention to prefer a public interest litigation before this Court during the month of May 2014 and accordingly, issued legal notice on 23.5.2014 with a threat perspective. According to the respondents the transactions of sale are neither vitiated nor based upon fraudulent documents. The property in question shown as site No. 2099/A was not reconveyed since in the allotment ledger maintained by the 1st respondent, no site bearing such number is registered, while, site no: 2098 is shown to be vacant, and it was in that context, copies of documents in respect of site no. 2099/2014 were not made available. According to the respondents the entire case made out by the petitioner is misconceived on an erroneous understanding that the site purchased by the respondents is Site No. 2099/A, not reconveyed in favour of any persons as disclosed in the records maintained by the BDA. 3. The factual matrix, according to the said respondents is: (a) one R. Veerappa was the owner of Sy. 3. The factual matrix, according to the said respondents is: (a) one R. Veerappa was the owner of Sy. No. 15/3 of Kethmaranahalli, Bangalore, whence the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) proposed a residential layout called Rajajinagara II Stage and issued acquisition notification in that regard, by which time a revenue layout was already formed, hence CITB found it impracticable to include and form sites, and therefore, a scheme for re-conveyance of the revenue sites under Section 38(c) of the Bangalore Development Act, 1975 was formulated; (b) The request of R.Veerappa, the owner of the aforesaid revenue site for re-conveyance by representation dated 12.1.1971 to the BDA, when accepted was directed to pay Rs. 1177/- through communication dated 12.4.1972, which was made over on 19.9.1979. (c) On 22.5.1982, it is said, R. Rangaaiah submitted an application for transfer of site No. 2099/A into his name, whence in a spot inspection, it was noticed that the said site was, in fact, assigned site No. 2098 in the layout plan of the BDA and by notice dated 4.8.1983 R. Rangaiah was called upon to furnish a rectification deed so as to correct the discrepancy in the site number. (d) R. Rangaiah is said to have submitted a representation on 25.11.1983 informing the 1st respondent-BDA of the purchase of the site from a private party as a revenue site bearing No. 2099/A carved out in Sy. No. 15/3 of Kyathamaranahalli, although BDA had renumbered the said site as No. 2098. Since the previous owner was not available, the said Rangaiah was unable to obtain a consent letter showing the rectification of the number of the site. (e) Rangaiah, the father of the 2nd respondent is said to have made another representation dated 4.1.1984 to the 1st respondent-BDA for issue of possession certificate in respect of site No. 2098, in response to which, an endorsement dt. 15.2.1984 was issued calling upon the said Rangaiah to furnish rectification deed over the site number, which was responded to by a reply dated 16.3.1984 reiterating his earlier statements and sought a sympathetic consideration of the case, following which BDA by communication dated 11.7.1984 directed Rangaiah to furnish an indemnity bond against any future legal complications, which was complied with during the month of September, 1984. (f) BDA issued communication dated 29.10.1984/9.11.1984 calling upon Rangaiah to pay Rs. (f) BDA issued communication dated 29.10.1984/9.11.1984 calling upon Rangaiah to pay Rs. 4800/- being the layout charges and cost of land and to surrender the original reconveyance order dated 13.4.1972 which was complied with. (g) It is further stated that the title deeds submitted by Rangaiah, being the transactions of sale under conveyance deeds disclosed that Site No. 2099/A was described in the schedule as bounded on the:- East: by road West: site No. 2098 North: Road South: site No. 2099 while site No. 2098 in the records of the BDA also recorded the very same boundaries. 4. It is, therefore, stated that the mistake in recording the number of the site as 2099/A instead of 2098, led to several correspondence between the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent which when clarified, there is neither fraudulent transactions or documentation. 5. Regard being had to the assertions of the parties and relevant documents placed on record by the respondents 3 and 4 relating to the transaction in question clarifying the position that site No. 2099/A is none other than site No. 2098 in the records of the BDA, coupled with the fact that the transactions are all under deeds of conveyance duly registered, for valuable sale consideration, more appropriately commencing from the request of R. Veerappa, the vendor-in-title of R. Rangappa, the Will bequeathing the property in favour of the 2nd respondent and the sale deed conveying the property in favour of respondents 3 & 4 jointly, being apparently legal and valid, there is no merit in the allegations of the petitioner that a fraud was played by creating documents, in respect of the petitioner schedule property. 6. On 19.8.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file a detailed affidavit over record of public service or social service rendered by the petitioner to be qualified to file a litigation in public interest, in compliance with which an affidavit dated 25.8.2014 is filed stating that:- petitioner carries on social activity for the upliftment of poor, depressed persons; is a member of the Ward Committee, West Zone, Ward No. 76, Gayathrinagar, BBMP; member of waste management, Rajajinagar ward; General Secretary of BJP, Malleshwaram Yuva Morcha, Bangalore and President of Akhila Karnataka Dr. Subhash Bharani Abhimanigala Sangha, Bangalore. In addition, petitioner asserts to be a member of Sri. Subhash Bharani Abhimanigala Sangha, Bangalore. In addition, petitioner asserts to be a member of Sri. Vidhya Ganapathi Yuvakara Sangha, Gayathrinagara, organized number of functions to felicitate the area corporator and MLA and arranged for distribution of note books to school children, while organizing meals and other facilities to school children, supported by photographs of functions. According to the petitioner, he spends time from 7 am to 10 am as social worker and for segregation of waste for the BBMP. At paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the deponent states that he found that there is some litigation in regard to the property owned by the respondent as people were talking something fishy about the title to the said property and hence with an intention to bring to the notice and knowledge of the respondents to safeguard the Government properties, application was filed under RTI Act to the BDA, and the reply thereto, disclosed some illegality regarding title and therefore, a complaint was lodged with the Commissioner of Police which when not responsive, resorted to the petition by way of public interest litigation. 7. A perusal of the petitioner's compliant, Annexure-H to the Station House Officer, Subramanyanagar Police Station discloses, as a matter of fact that petitioner on the request of the local Nagara Sabha member intended to put up construction of a building for a library and gymnasium in site No. 2099/A, whence it was noticed that respondents 3 and 4 were erecting construction on the said property. On 6.5.2014, it is stated, petitioner received information that Site No. 2099/A was not allotted to anybody and though a vacant site nevertheless BDA is unable to furnish documents and when the complainant sought documents from City Survey was informed that the property belongs to and "is in possession of 'C' and 'TB' ". It is in the complaint it is alleged that Nanjegowda created a false Will and paid taxes to BBMP and produced forged documents and got the sanctioned plan, in respect of the said site, by colluding with some of the officials of the BBMP and that respondents 3 and 4 usurped public property worth Rs. 2.00 crores by cheating the government and the public. 8. 2.00 crores by cheating the government and the public. 8. In the view taken supra that there is neither illegality nor fraud played by either the 1st respondent-BDA or respondents 2 to 4, the allegations of the petitioner, both in the petition as well as in the complaint petition Annexure-H, are uncalled for and borders around deliberate mischievous statements against the respondents. The statements in the complaint Annexure-H is indicative of the fact that petitioner was interested in property No. 2099/A to put up construction of a building for a library and gymnasium and therefore, an element of personal interest. The property, even according to the petitioner, is worth Rs. 2.00 crores. In the circumstances it is not possible to accept that there is even a plausible element of public interest in this petition. 9. Petitioner through his learned counsel on 27.8.2014 stated that in case petitioner does not succeed or the cause is abandoned by him, would pay to the respondents concerned all reasonable expenses that may have been incurred by them upon being called to the Court as respondents, which was duly recorded, based upon which notice was issued to respondents 1 and 2. Respondents entered appearance and placed on record all relevant material particulars with documents in respect of their claim. In our opinion petitioner abused the process of Court by filing the petition and inviting a response on the condition that if the petition failed would be liable to reasonable expenses of the respondents. On an examination of the contentions of the petitioner we find the whole edifice of his case to be built upon non-existent foundation and all arguments stem from fallacious assumptions. Hence petitioner deserves to be saddled with Cost. 10. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Cost quantified at Rs. 25,000/- each to respondents 1, 2 while for respondents 3 and 4 together.