Firstly, we dealt with the directions issued on 27th September 2019 in W.P.No.31624/2019. The State Government was directed to file a report indicating, whether the proceedings under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 for short the said Act of 2004 have been initiated against the 11th to 19th respondents, whether the competent authorities have been appointed and whether the properties are attached under the said Act of 2004. Even as regards the thirteenth respondent, a specific direction was issued considering the stand that the State Government is unable to initiate proceedings under the said Act of 2004 on account of the failure of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner to submit a report. Today, a chart is tendered across the bar by the State Government. The chart does not contain the details as directed under the order dated 27th September 2019. Moreover, what is stated in the chart is inconsistent. As regards fifteenth respondent, there are two entries in Item No.2 under the caption South East Division. Against the first entry, it is mentioned that provisions of the said Act of 2004 have been invoked. Against the second entry, it is mentioned that the provisions are not invoked. The chart does not contain the details such as, appointment of the competent authority and attachment of the properties. Thus, the said chart does not comply with the directions in the order dated 27th September 2019. As noted in the said order, against the thirteenth respondents company, the State has not initiated action, only on the ground that notwithstanding several letters addressed to the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, they are not responding. Considering this inaction, we direct the Secretary of the Revenue Department of the State Government to file the objections, explaining as to why compliance with the order dated 27th September 2019 has not been made. The Secretary will furnish all the details as are indicated in the order dated 27th September 2019. He will also specifically state the action, if any, initiated in respect of the thirteenth respondent and also state, whether any action has been initiated against the erring officials namely, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, who even according to the State are not responding to the letters written by the State. The first petitioner appearing in W.P.No.31624/2019 states that as regards the twelfth respondent, the competent authority under the said Act of 2004 has been appointed, but no action under the said Act of 2004 has been taken. Even this aspect shall be dealt with by the Secretary of the Revenue Department. Such an Affidavit shall be filed by 31st October 2019. The Affidavit must also explain the reasons for inaction on the part of the State Government. In the chart tendered today, the details of the offences registered against the eleventh to nineteenth respondents have been set out. We direct that the detailed reports about investigation carried out shall be produced before the Court in a sealed envelope. We have perused the second Status Report submitted by the CBI, in which several details of the investigation so far carried out and the fact of filing the first supplementary charge sheet have been mentioned. One disturbing fact mentioned in the said report is that notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court on 16th September 2019, the State Government has not granted approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short the said Act of 1988 n to conduct an enquiry or investigation. It is stated that only in case of one accused that such approval under Section 17 A of the said Act of 1988 has been granted and notwithstanding the order of this Court dated 16th September 2019, approval has not been granted in relation to the other two accused. The State Government must explain the delay in taking the decision on the request made by the CBI for grant of approval under Section 17 A of the said Act of 1988 by filing an Affidavit of a Senior Officer not below the rank of the Secretary to the Government. Apart from taking action for committing the breach of the order dated 16th September 2019, on failure of the State Government to consider the case for grant of approval in case of two other accused, the Court will be free to draw the appropriate inference. The report submitted by the CBI shall be resealed and kept in the custody of the Registrar General of this Court. We have also perused the status report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate. The Enforcement Directorate shall ensure that necessary co operation is rendered to the CBI as well as the competent authority under the said Act of 2004. Copies of all orders of provisional attachment passed under sub section 1 of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shall be made available to the competent authority under the said Act of 2004. The learned counsel Sri. Madhukar Deshpande appearing for the Enforcement Directorate states that the copies of the orders passed till date have been made available to the competent authority. The status report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate shall be resealed and kept in the safe custody of the Registrar General of this Court.