1. The petitioner herein seeks a direction from this Court (1) to direct respondents 1 and 2, (i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary; and the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department), to transfer Crime No.53 of 2011 on the file of P.S. CID, Hyderabad to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) or to direct investigation of the said complaint under the supervision of an officer senior to Sri V. Dinesh Reddy, IPS, Director General of Police (DGP) (respondent No.4); (2) to direct CBI to enquire into the entire property transactions of the 4th respondent and his wife, and examine if Sri Y. Ravi Prasad and Sri A. Krishna Reddy are holding 542 properties as benamies of the 4th respondent and his wife; (3) to direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Union of India to order an enquiry for initiating disciplinary action against the 4th respondent on the basis of the petitioner’s letters dated 08.03.2011, 27.04.2011, 21.06.2011, 02.09.2011 and 09.09.2011, for violation of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Conduct Rules’); and (4) to direct both the Government of A.P., and the Union of India, to call upon the 4th respondent to furnish a full and complete statement of all movable and immovable properties acquired or sold by him, or by any member of his family, in accordance with Rule 16(5) of the Conduct Rules, and initiate disciplinary action under Rule 3(1) and Rues 16(1), (3) and (4) of the Conduct Rules.

2. Facts, in so far as they are relevant to the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition, are that the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission, Hyderabad, forwarded a copy of the complaint petition, and its enclosures, purported to have been put in by one Sri T. Ramulu Naik, organizing secretary of the All India Banjara Seva Sangham, Ranga Reddy District. Allegations were levelled, in the said complaint petition, against Sri V. Dinesh Reddy, IPS (4th respondent herein). The Vigilance Commissioner requested that necessary action be taken on the complaint petition. While the file was being examined by the State Government to verify the genuineness of the petition, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, vide letter dated 05.05.2011, enclosed a copy of the complaint dated 22.04.2011, along with its enclosures, sent in the name of Sri M.A. Khan, Member of Parliament. The complaint alleged that the 4th respondent had disproportionate assets, and his wife had purchased huge extents of land either herself or through benamies. The Joint Secretary informed that the matter should be looked into, and a detailed report sent to the Ministry for sending a suitable reply. While matters stood thus the fourth respondent informed the 1st respondent, vide letter dated 28.05.2011, that he had got the matter enquired into, and it was found that the representationist Sri T. Ramulu Naik did not exist, and it was a pseudonym petition. The fourth respondent requested the Government to order a CID probe as it was a case of forgery, criminal conspiracy and cheating. In his letter dated 23.05.2011, Sri M.A. Khan (Member of Parliament-Rajya Sabha) informed the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India that the letter sent in his name earlier was fabricated; no such letter was addressed by him either to the Home Secretary or to any one else; and the letter be treated as false. Thereafter the State Government, vide memo dated 02.08.2011, requested the Additional Director-General of Police, CID (7th respondent herein) to conduct an enquiry, and submit a report to the Government, into (a) who had forged the letter of Sri M.A. Khan, M.P; and (b) who had obtained all these documents running into hundreds of pages from the concerned Sub-Registrars offices. The 7th respondent informed the 4th respondent, by his letter dated 22.08.2011, that a