JUDGMENT : The writ petitioner herein prominently seeks two prayers. Legally and practically, it is as against the second respondent, who is the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau in Kerala. One prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing penal and other actions by the Government on a report submitted by the Finance Secretary against the second respondent, concerning some irregularities in some of his actions, and the other prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to keep the second respondent away from the present position as Director of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau. As regards the second prayer, this Court had already observed in the order dated 16.02.2017 that the said matter is exclusively within the prerogative of the Government, and that in normal circumstances, this Court will not intervene in such matters. This Court also observed, "let the Government think and decide wisely on the issue". 2. As regards the second prayer, it is now submitted by the learned State Attorney that the Director has gone on long leave. From the other side, it is submitted that it was as directed by the Government. Anyway, it is not certain whether he is actually on leave, or whether he has been removed from the present post. Let things be done appropriately by the Government. This issue regarding removal of the Director led to an unnecessary issue and channel discussions, to which this Court was also dragged, along with another pending Revision. It is really inappropriate, deprecatory and contemptuous. One of the TV channels, and also one of the advocates who participated in the channel discussion crossed all the limits of propriety, gentility and professional etiquettes, and even made an indirect "bargain" for the judgment to be pronounced by the Court in the said pending Revision. This sort of channel discussions will have to be treated as interference in the process of administration of justice. It was really contemptuous to drag a pending matter also to the said discussion. The different TV channels organised such a discussion without enquiring and understanding what really happened in court. It was wrongly and irresponsibly telecast that this Court has directed the Government to change the VACB Director. 3. It was really contemptuous to drag a pending matter also to the said discussion. The different TV channels organised such a discussion without enquiring and understanding what really happened in court. It was wrongly and irresponsibly telecast that this Court has directed the Government to change the VACB Director. 3. On some earlier occasions, this Court had noticed some unhealthy instances of investigative excess on the part of the VACB, and necessary directions were also given to the Government indirectly to correct the VACB. On 30.03.2017, a proceeding came up before this Court, involving some anarchic excess on the part of the VACB by way of making investigation into the budget and the Finance Act passed by the Kerala State Legislative Assembly. When things went to that extent of the VACB trying to reign over the State Legislative Assembly also, I had to observe that the Director will have to summoned to court, if such excess is continued. Incidentally, a report submitted by the Vigilance Director regarding the investigation conducted in Jisha Murder case was mentioned in court. At that time, when the other matter was being heard as regards the powers of the VACB even to enquire into the wisdom of the legislature, I asked the learned Public Prosecutor, why necessary action was not taken by the Government on the issue, to correct and control the VACB in spite of so many instances of excess pointed out by the Court. This was probably misinterpreted, dishonestly or otherwise, by some TV channels, that the court has directed the Government to change the Vigilance Director. We judges cannot hold press meet or channel discussions. We can speak only through judicial orders, and I am doing so. As already observed, there was an attempt on the part of the media, and also some journalists and Advocates who participated in the discussion, to link a pending proceeding with the other matters now before the High Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This is really dishonest and contemptuous. 4. Whether the VACB Director has been removed, or whether he is on leave, is not certain. Anyway, that is not the issue before this Court, and that is not the concern of the court also. Let the Government decide things appropriately and wisely. This Court had, on many occasions, pointed out the different instances of excess on the part of the VACB. Anyway, that is not the issue before this Court, and that is not the concern of the court also. Let the Government decide things appropriately and wisely. This Court had, on many occasions, pointed out the different instances of excess on the part of the VACB. Such orders were not mentioned or referred to in the channel discussions. Responsible and honest media will definitely publish/telecast this judicial order, I hope. 5. In the above circumstances, no orders are felt necessary as regards the second prayer to remove the Director of VACB. Let the Government decide on the issue appropriately. The court cannot give any direction on the judicial side. 6. Now let me come to the other prayer for comprehensive action on the basis of the Exts. P3 and P4 reports submitted by the Finance Secretary of the Government. The learned State Attorney submitted that the report is now being considered by the Government, and appropriate action will definitely be taken on the report on the basis of the advice obtained from the concerned. Here also, positive directions cannot be made by the Court to act this way or that way. If the Government finds any binding force in the said report, the Government will have to act accordingly. Anyway, let appropriate action; whether it is departmental or penal, be wisely taken by the Government on the report. I feel that such a direction will suffice in this matter. Notice to the party respondents is felt not necessary because no order is being passed against them. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: (a) As regards the prayer for removal of the Director of the VACB, let the Government take decision appropriately on a consideration of all the relevant aspects, including the earlier orders and observations made by the court. The Government will also consider that the court has been thinking of making some guidelines/directions to the VACB for the discharge of functions within the limits prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Evidence Act, the Police Act etc.. (b) As regards the other prayer for comprehensive action on the basis of the Exts. P3 and P4 reports, the Government is directed that appropriate necessary actions shall be taken on a consideration of all the relevant aspects, within a period of three months. (b) As regards the other prayer for comprehensive action on the basis of the Exts. P3 and P4 reports, the Government is directed that appropriate necessary actions shall be taken on a consideration of all the relevant aspects, within a period of three months. It is clarified that this Court's direction is not to take any particular action. It is left to the discretion and prerogative of the Government to act appropriately, and pass necessary orders on the report. P. UBAID, J. W.P.(C).No. 5142 of 2017 Decided On : 08-3-2017 ORDER : The learned State Attorney seeks two weeks more to file report as directed on 16.02.2017. It appears that the Government is yet to take a decision on the detailed report submitted by the Finance Secretary. What is sought by the writ petitioner is not simply criminal action. The action he wants is comprehensive in nature, including criminal prosecution as reported by the Finance Secretary in the Ext.P3 report. Let a detailed report come from the Government regarding the various actions possible, and taken, on the basis of the Ext.P3 report. Let a copy of this order, with a copy of the order dated 16.2.2017, be forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Government. Post after two weeks. P. UBAID, J. I.A. No. (Unnumbered) of 2017 & I.A. No. 3344 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 5142 of 2017 Decided On : 28-02-2017 ORDER : I.A.No. (Unnumbered) of 2017 The document produced is said to be the copy received under Right to Information Act. The letter accompanying the document shows that it was granted on application under the RTI Act. The material received in reply under the RTI Act will have limited evidentiary value. Subject to such evidentiary value, the document can be received by the court. Hence, this application can be numbered. I.A. No. 3344 of 2017 The petitioner has already produced a copy of the document. The respondents can be directed to produce the original only if the original itself is felt necessary during the course of proceedings. For the time being, the original is not required by the court. Hence, this application is closed. W.P.(C) No. 5142 of 2017 The learned State Attorney seeks some more time to file report as directed on 16.2.2017. Post the W.P. (C) after a week. For the time being, the original is not required by the court. Hence, this application is closed. W.P.(C) No. 5142 of 2017 The learned State Attorney seeks some more time to file report as directed on 16.2.2017. Post the W.P. (C) after a week. P. UBAID, J. W.P.(C) No. 5142 of 2017 Decided On : 16-02-2017 ORDER : Notice taken by the learned State Attorney. The prominent prayers made in this writ petition are; (1) a writ of mandamus directing penal and other actions by the Government on a report submitted by the Finance Secretary against the second respondent, concerning some irregularities amounting to corruption in connection with the purchase of Cutter Suction Drudger during the tenure of the second respondent as Port's Director, and (2) a writ of mandamus directing the Government to keep the second respondent away from the present position as Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. As regards the second prayer, the matter is exclusively within the prerogative of the Government. This Court, in normal circumstances, will not intervene in such matters. Let the Government think and decide wisely on the issue. Before thinking on the first prayer for action, the court will have to get a report from the Government regarding the penal and other actions taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Finance Secretary against the second respondent. The learned State Attorney will obtain such a report containing all the details. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned State Attorney. Post after two weeks.