Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, claiming to be human right activist, as a public interest litigation with the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the 2nd respondent to register a FIR on the basis of Exhibits P1 and P3 applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalithakumari v. State of UP and others.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the 1st respondent to take action against the respondents 2 and 3 in not registering the FIR on receipt of Exhibits P1 and P3."

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the Writ Petition are:

The petitioner filed complaint No.964/2014-A before the Kerala Lok Ayukta making allegations against various public servants, who were alleged to have acted in connivance with the private respondents, who unlawfully gained pecuniary benefits. The Kerala Lok Ayukta, on the complaint, directed for a preliminary investigation on 30.7.2014. The Kerala Lok Ayukta directed to investigate into the truthfulness of the allegations raised in Complaint No.964/14. A team was constituted under the leadership of the fourth respondent vide letter dated 5.8.2014. The leader of the team has submitted an investigation report dated 19.11.2014 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. The Kerala Lok Ayukta, vide order dated 9.1.2015, admitted the complaint and issued notice to the respondents other than respondents 1 and 8, against whom no specific findings were found in the report. On 12.1.2015 the petitioner filed a complaint before the third respondent, Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram praying for registration of FIR on the basis of enquiry report dated 19.11.2014 submitted by the fourth respondent before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. The fourth respondent, who had submitted enquiry report dated 19.11.2014, submitted a clarification report before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, without the Kerala Lok Ayukta having called for any clarification report. The Kerala Lok Ayukta opened the clarification report on 6.2.2015. On the same day an order dated 6.2.2015 was passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta expressing its displeasure on the report being widely published in the media, both electronic and print, without the report having been opened by the Kerala Lok Ayukta. The Kerala Lok Ayukta directed the Registrar to keep the clarification report in safe custody. The third respondent, vide his letter dated 27.1.2015, communicated to the petitioner that "as the enquiry report is under consideration of the Kerala Lok Ayukta, it is not proper for the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau to register a case and conduct investigation on the subject at the moment". The petitioner filed an interlocutory application in Complaint No.964/2014 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta seeking impleadment of 38 persons, including the Chief Minister and former Revenue Minister as additional respondents in the complaint. By order dated 6.2.2015 the Lok Ayukta stated that "as for issuing notice regarding proposal to implead the other persons including the Chief Minister and former Revenue Minister, we are not inclined to issue notice to them now". Thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 9.2.2015 before the third respondent again requesting to register an FIR with Chief Minister, former Chief Secretary and former Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority as the initial accused. After submitting the said letter dated 9.2.2015, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing this public interest litigation on 12.2.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation report dated 19.11.2014, which was obtained by the Kerala Lok Ayukta on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, having disclosed a cognizable offence, the third respondent ought to have registered an FIR on the information submitted by the petitioner by letter dated 12.1.2