Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.By this writ petition the petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P6 being orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in complaint No.877/2016 (D). It may be noted that the said complaint was filed by the writ petitioner herself.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent who is the sole private contesting respondent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader and with their consent, we are disposing of this matter at this stage itself.

3. It appears that the father of the writ petitioner and 5th respondent left behind certain properties, part of which was given to one or the other family member and part of it was allegedly intended to be kept in the state of joint owners. Amongst co-sharers, there were some disputes which lead to the institution of O.S. No.2199/2015 before the Munsiffs Court, Thiruvananthapuram by 5th respondent in which the petitioner is a defendant. In the Suit the plaintiff had obtained an injunction restraining the defendant, i.e. the writ petitioner, from changing the nature of the property in any manner.

4. It appears some time thereafter the writ petitioner alleged that on the basis of certain forgeries committed by 5th respondent or at her behest, wrong entries were being sought to be made in the revenue records of the State in respect of part of the property which was the subject matter of the Suit. The writ petitioner/defendant in the Suit then moved the Upa Lok Ayukta by the instant complaint complaining about alleged mal-administration by the revenue authorities in the matter of mutation as allegedly got done by the plaintiff who is the 5th respondent herein. In those proceedings, the writ petitioner invited the attention of the Upa Lok Ayukta to the facts and sought orders against the mal-administration as alleged. Upon notice to the parties and hearing them, the Upa Lok Ayukta passed orders, which are impugned herein as Exts.P4 and P6. Those orders are positive directions to the revenue authorities and have substantially gone against the writ petitioner who was the complainant.

5. The submission on behalf of the writ petitioner is that in the facts and circumstances as noted above, the Upa Lok Ayukta did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and consequently the orders passed are out of jurisdiction. Secondly, he submitted that in terms of Section 12 of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to issue positive directions. The aforesaid provision and in particular sub-section (1) thereof comments that the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta would submit a report in writing to the appropriate authority with their recommendation. Thus, it is only an advisory order but, not a peremptory order that could be issued.

6. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel appearing on both sides. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent, who was also the contesting respondent before the Upa Lok Ayukta and who is plaintiff in the Suit, has very fairly conceded that the complaint as filed by the writ petitioner could not be entertained by the Upa Lok Ayukta in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the petitioner and the contesting respondent are ad idem on this issue, which, in our view, is the correct position.

7. The matter relates to a civil dispute which is pending before a court of competent jurisdiction where both the parties have appeared. The nature of dispute is such that it has to be adjudicated by the civil court. Thus the matter being substantially sub judice before the civil court, in our opinion, the Upa Lok Ayukta ought not to have entertained the complaint at all and left the parties to avail all remedies as per common civil law. Even if both the parties moved the Upa Lok Ayukta, it is well established that consent cannot confer jurisdiction, where there was inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of Upa Lok Ayukta to entertain such a complaint. Even if both the parties agreed, jurisdiction could not be conferred where the statute does not provide for it. We would like to put in a word of caution here as well that wherever disputes are taken before appropriate designated forums and are pending or have been resolved, in the manner as provided by law, Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta would not have jurisdiction in the matter. Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta are not appellate or supervisory authorities over other competent forums created under different statutes, because each of those statutes provide its own remedial steps like appeal, revision or otherwise. Parties have to follow those procedures and their remedies are to be worked out on the basis of those statutory provisions and there is nothing in the Lok Ayukta Act which would override those procedures or forums giving Lok Ayukta the right to override orders statutorily passed by statutory authorities. This would include civil court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, in our opinion, the complaint ought not to have been entertained by the Lok Ayukta. That being the position, the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta were wholly without jurisdiction and consequentially the orders passed therein cannot be held to be legal, valid and binding.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the complaint (Ext.P2) made before the Lok Ayukta in order to move civil court or such other competent authority as the petitioner may be advised. Leave is granted. Accordingly, the complaint filed before the Lok Ayukta would thus stand withdrawn.

9. While on this we would also like to notice the second limb of argument of the learned counsel that Lok Ayukta was not competent to issue positive directions. In our view, a plain reading of Section 12(1) of themakes this position clear. He can only make a report to the concerned authority with recommendations. But no positive directions much less peremptory in nature can be issued by the Upa Lok Ayukta or Lok Ayukta as they are not such a statutory authority. They have only recommendatory jurisdiction.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.