Anil K. Narendran, J.

This Writ Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.2016 in W.P.(C).No.32130/2016. The appellant filed the said Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 Confidential Verification Report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (for brevity, the VACB) on the allegations made against the 5th respondent, who was the Managing Director of the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (for brevity, 'the KTDFC') and a writ of mandamus commanding the Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity, 'the CBI'), the 3rd respondent herein, to investigate and take action as mandated under law into the matters enquired and resulted in Ext.P3 Confidential Verification Report of the VACB. The appellant has also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 communication dated 9.8.2016 of the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala addressed to the Deputy Secretary (Police), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India by which the Central Government was informed about the decision of the State Government that no further action is required on the complaint made against the 5th respondent.

2. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned Central Government Counsel has taken notice on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, learned Standing Counsel has taken notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent CBI, and learned Advocate General has taken notice on behalf of the 4th respondent State. Notice was not issued to the 5th respondent at the stage of admission.

3. The reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition were opposed by the 4th respondent State by filing a detailed statement. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement through their retainer counsel opposing the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. The appellant/writ petitioner has also filed reply affidavit to the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent State.

4. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the appellant/writ petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner is before this Court in this appeal.

6. On 6.2.2007, when this appeal came up for admission, we heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondent, learned retainer counsel for the 3rd respondent CBI and also learned Advocate General for the 4th respondent State.

7. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the 5th respondent, who is a member of All India Service (Kerala Cadre) is presently holding the post of Director General of Police in charge of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. The 5th respondent while working as Managing Director of the KTDFC submitted an application dated 10.12.2008 seeking leave for three months with effect from 5.1.2009 in order to complete writing of two research articles from the thesis done as part of his Doctoral programme in Human Resource Development, during the study leave granted as per G.O.(Rt.)No.4122/99/GAD. In the said application, the 5th respondent has stated that he could not write the research articles earlier and the scientific work requires focused attention with extensive review of literature and discussion with academicians. As discernible from the said letter (which forms part of the enclosures to Ext.P1) a leave application in the prescribed format was also enclosed therewith. Based on the said request, by G.O.(Rt.)No.317/2009/GAD dated 31.3.2009, the 5th respondent was granted extraordinary leave for three months from 5.1.2009 or from the date of avail, subject to eligibility.

8. Seeking extension of leave for three months, in continuation of the leave already sanctioned, the 5th respondent made a request dated 25.5.2009 along with an application in the prescribed format. By G.O.(Rt.)No.