JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - This petition is directed against an order dated 1-2-80 passed by the Lok Ayukt, U. P., Lucknow. The proceedings before the Lok Ayukt were initiated at the instance of opposite. party 2, Chaman Lal Batla, by filing two complaints under S. 12, U.P. Lok Ayukt and U.P. Lokayukt Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The complaint was made in regard to construction of Jukhnai Bridge and the Gomti Bridge in the district of Pilibhit. The Lok Ayukt by his order dated 1-2-1980 held that no action should be taken against the Engineers but directed that payment be made to Chaman Lal Batla in respect of the amount which opposite party 1 recommended to be paid to him. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 1-2-1980 on the ground that opposite party 1 had no jurisdiction to make a direction in regard to payment of money. 2. Opposite party 2, Chaman Lal Batla, appeared before this Court to argue his case in person. His contention is that opposite party 1 could make a direction in regard to Mr. K.B. Sinha. He has submitted that the writ petition is premature as opposite party 1 had only made a recommendation that the payment of money be made. This recommendation would be considered by the State Government and the stage for actual payment of money to opposite party 2 would arise only after all the formalities required to be followed by S. 12 of the Act are fulfilled. His contention is that the cause of action in favour of the petitioners will arise only when the report of the Lok Ayukt is placed before each House of the State Legislature and decision is taken in favour of opposite party 2 in regard to payment of money. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties it would be appropriate to deal with certain provisions of the Act. The Act has been enacted to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the investigation of grievances and allegations against ministers, legislators, and other public servants in certain cases and for matters connected therewith. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties it would be appropriate to deal with certain provisions of the Act. The Act has been enacted to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the investigation of grievances and allegations against ministers, legislators, and other public servants in certain cases and for matters connected therewith. Section 2 (b) defines "allegation" as follows : "Allegation", in relation to a public servant, means any affirmation that such public servant- (i) has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, (ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motive, or (iii) is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant." Section (d) defines grievance as follows : "Grievance means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal-administration." Section 2 (f) defines maladministration as follows : "Maladministration" means action taken or purporting to have been taken in exercise of administrative functions in any case - (i) where such action or the administrative procedure or practice governing such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, or (ii) where there has been negligence or undue delay in taking such action, or the administrative procedure or practice governing such action involves undue delay." Section 7 of the Act provides that Lokayukta may on complaint involving a grievance or an allegation investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of any public servant. Section 8 of the Act provides for matters which are not subject to investigation by Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta. It says that the Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act if such action relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule or if the complainant has or had any remedy by way of proceedings before any Tribunal or Court of law. There is a proviso added to S. 8 that nothing in sub-cl. (ii) shall prevent the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta from conducting an investigation if he is satisfied that such person could not or cannot, for sufficient cause, have recourse to a remedy referred to in that sub-clause. There is a proviso added to S. 8 that nothing in sub-cl. (ii) shall prevent the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta from conducting an investigation if he is satisfied that such person could not or cannot, for sufficient cause, have recourse to a remedy referred to in that sub-clause. A perusal of the Third Schedule would indicate that the Lokayukta is not empowered to the action in matters which arise out of the terms of a contract governing purely commercial relations of the administration of the Government. Section (4) also provides that the Lokayukta shall not investigate any complaint involving a grievance if the complaint is made after the expiry of twelve months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant. It also provides that it shall not investigate any complaint involving an allegation if the complaint is made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place. The Section also provides that the Lokayukta may entertain a complaint referred to in cl. (a), if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in that clause. Section 12 of the Act provides that Lokayukta, if after investigation of any action in respect of which complaint involving a grievance has been made. is satisfied that such action had resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant shall by a report in writing recommend to the public servant and the competent authority concerned that such injustice or undue hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report. The competent authority to whom the report is sent shall examine the report forwarded to it and intimate within three months of the date of the receipt of the report the Lokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. If Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendation or findings he shall close the case but if he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the complainant concerned. If Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendation or findings he shall close the case but if he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the complainant concerned. On the receipt of the special report the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature. 4. It may be noted that the Administrative Reforms Commissioner were requested by the State Government to consider the problems of redress of grievances of the citizen with a view of ensuring the highest degree of efficiency and integrity in the administration while keeping in view the desirability of making the administration more responsible to the public. The commission submitted a report in which they dealt with the complaints usually made by the public regarding prevalence of corruption, wide inefficiency and indifference shown by the administration to the needs of the public. The Commission felt that the only remedy for the solution of the problem was to set up such a machinery as may examine the complaints of the public and separate the petitions and frivolous complaints from the genuine one so that the failures and achievements of the administration could be assessed openly in the right perspective. Accordingly the Commission had recommended the establishment of some statutory administrative machinery for looking into the complaints regarding alleged injustice emanating from corruption and maladministration and with a view to give effect to the above recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission with certain modifications the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta was promulgated by the Governor first in the shape of an ordinance and subsequently by an Act of the Legislature. 5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to investigate in regard to a matter in respect of which remedy by way of proceeding in court of law is available. He submitted that one of the grievances of opposite party 2 was that he was unable to obtain certain amount of money. the Lokayukta after examining the case recommended that the money shall be paid to opposite party 2. He submitted that one of the grievances of opposite party 2 was that he was unable to obtain certain amount of money. the Lokayukta after examining the case recommended that the money shall be paid to opposite party 2. The argument of the petitioner is that in regard to money matters the proper remedy for opposite party 2 was to file a regular suit and obtain relief from the Court of law. The learned Chief Standing Counsel also submitted that since the dispute in regard to money is an action arising out of a contract the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate the claim of opposite party 2. A perusal of the record indicates that opposite party 2 is a contractor and he entered into two contracts with the State of U.P. through the Superintending Engineer. XVIII Circle (Bridges). P.W.D. Lucknow, for the construction of Jukhani bridge in the district of Pilibhit and the other for the construction of Gomti Bridge, Pilibhit. Under the terms of the contract relating to Jukhani bridge the bridge October, 1967 (sic). The case of the petitioners is that opposite party 2 did not proceed with the construction of the bridge properly and the progress was very slow with the result that the construction of the bridge could not be completed within the scheduled time. On June 28, 1967 opposite party 2 gave a notice under S. 80, C.P.C., to the State of U.P. for filing a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,07,022/- against the State of U.P. The notice was however withdrawn on the same day by the opposite party in order to receive payment against the running bills. On 27th August, 1967, opposite party 2 submitted an application for extension to complete the said Jukhani bridge by 30th March, 1970. A similar request for extension of time was made on 6th October. 1967. On 21st October, 1967 the Executive Engineer after looking to the construction of Jukhani bridge recommended for extension of time up to 31st July 1968. It appears that on 19th October, 1967 the contractor withdrew his extension application and opposite party 2 on 21st October, 1968 served a notice under S. 80, C.P.C., on the State Government claiming Rs. 1,07,022/- . It appears that on 19th October, 1967 the contractor withdrew his extension application and opposite party 2 on 21st October, 1968 served a notice under S. 80, C.P.C., on the State Government claiming Rs. 1,07,022/- . The petitioner replied to the notice by saying that the claim made by opposite party 2 was not genuine and that if any legal proceedings or suit was initiated the State will defend the same. Opposite party 2 also filed an application under S. 8, Arbitration Act, with the request that as the State Government has refused the arbitration, the opposite party 2 relying upon the provision of Cl. 23 of the general conditions prayed that an arbitrator be appointed to decide the dispute between the opposite party 2 and the State. The learned Civil Judge Pilibhit dismissed the application and held that clause 23 of the agreement was not an arbitration agreement. Against the order of the civil Judge opposite party 2 filed a revision application in this Court but the same was dismissed on 21st April, 1971. After the dismissal of the revision application, the until January, 1974 when he sent letters to the Department opposite party 2 kept quiet for the refund of the security. Since the opposite party 2 did not complete the work within time, the work was handed over and got done by another contractor and the petitioner had to incur an extra expenditure of Rs. 47,046.82 to complete the bridge. In the meantime opposite party 2 directly entered into the correspondence with the Executive Engineer P.W.D. for refund of security. On being asked by the Additional Chief Engineer the Superintending Engineer submitted a report in which he pointed out that the loss of the State Government should be adjusted against the available security money. On 10th October, 1967 the Additional Chief Engineer P.W.D., U.P. wrote to the Superintending Engineer that the security of opposite party 2 be finalised without recovering compensation damages from the contractor. Since the competent authority to adjust the security of opposite party 2 against the loss and damages caused to the State Government was the Superintending Engineer, the Superintending Engineer asked the Executive Engineer if he was still of the view that the loss should be adjusted against the available security money of opposite party 2. Since the competent authority to adjust the security of opposite party 2 against the loss and damages caused to the State Government was the Superintending Engineer, the Superintending Engineer asked the Executive Engineer if he was still of the view that the loss should be adjusted against the available security money of opposite party 2. The Executive Engineer, Kheri, reported on 15th November, 1977 that he reiterated his earlier recommendations for adjusting the security against the damages suffered by the State Government on account of the negligence of opposite party 2. The same is the position with regard to Gomti bridge and there was a dispute between the State and opposite party 2 whether opposite party 2 is entitled to security money. On 5th January, 1979, opposite party 2 submitted two complaints under S. 9 of the Act to the Lokayukta, one pertaining to Jukhni bridge and the other pertaining to Gomti bridge, against Sri Vijai Shankar Sood, Executive Engineer, Sri J. R. Jain, Superintending Engineer. Sri S. C. Dixit, Engineer-in-Chief of U.P. P. W. D. and Sri P. N. Roy, Chief Engineer. The Lokayukta after notice to the opp. party proceeded to examine the claim of opp. party No. 2. The Lokayukta rejected the prayer of opposite party 2, that action be taken against the Engineers as they did not make the payment to the contractor. He also held that the conduct of the engineers was not such that any action was required to be taken against them. The Lokayukta however observed that the delay in payment of security money was for want of orders of senior authorities. Accordingly the Lokayukta by his order Annexure I directed that after a direction had been made that the security money be refunded to opposite party 2 there was no justification on the part of opposite parties to retain the amount with them and withhold the payment of opposite party 2. 6. The facts narrated above would indicate that the petitioners put forward before the Lokayukta a claim which could not be investigated regard being had to the provisions of S. 8(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In the first instance the claim in regard to payment of money is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta as the claim for payment of money arose out of a term of contract governing purely commercial relations of the administration of the Government. In the first instance the claim in regard to payment of money is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta as the claim for payment of money arose out of a term of contract governing purely commercial relations of the administration of the Government. In such circumstances the appropriate remedy is to file a regular suit in the appropriate court. The facts stated above would indicate that at one stage opposite party served notice under S. 80, .C.P.C. The said opposite party went to the extent of moving the appropriate civil court for appointing an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. It appears that opposite party 2 attempted to secure the payment of money through the intervention of the civil court. Apart from that the nature of the claim made by opposite party 2 in regard to payment of money clearly indicates that he was putting forward the claim in regard to a matter in respect of which adequate relief could be granted by a court of law. The facts narrated above thus clearly indicate that the claim made by opposite party 2 arose out of a contract between him and the State Government and the claim for recovery of money by opposite party 2 under the terms of the contract can, be entertained by a regular court of law. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length we are of the view that opposite party 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim in regard to money in view of S. 8(b)(i). We have examined the line of reasonings adopted by the opposite party 1 and we find that the provisions referred to above clearly impose a bar on the Lokayukta to investigate the matter in respect of which relief can be available from a regular court of law. 7. Mr. K. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party 1 strenuously contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is premature. According to him the report of the Lokayukta under S. 12 - Annexures 1 - is only a recommendation made by him. Under S. 14(4) the competent authority shall examine the report and intimate within three months from the date of the receipt of the report the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. According to him the report of the Lokayukta under S. 12 - Annexures 1 - is only a recommendation made by him. Under S. 14(4) the competent authority shall examine the report and intimate within three months from the date of the receipt of the report the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. If the Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken year proposed to be taken he shall close the case under information to the complainant. But if he is not satisfied and if he considers that the case to the Governor and inform the complainant concerned (sic). On the receipt of the special report the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature. The contention of Mr. K. B. Sinha is that the report submitted (sic) authority as to whether the money should be paid or not. If the report is accepted by the competent authority then the matter shall be closed but if the said authority is not satisfied, he will prepare a special report which report shall be considered by each House of the State legislature along with the report of Lokayukta and then the decision will be taken whether the payment should be made or not. Mr. Sinha further elaborates his submission by saying that since the report is recommendatory in nature and final orders have yet to be passed, this court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. We have examined the argument of Mr. Sinha with the attention it deserves but we are unable to accede to the line of argument pressed by him. Section 17(2 of the Act provides that,no proceeding of the Lokayukta shall be held bad for want of form and except on the ground of jurisdiction no proceedings or decision of the Lokayukta shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question by any court. This provision makes it abundantly clear that if the Lokayukta has exceeded its jurisdiction his action can be called in question in appropriate court. This provision makes it abundantly clear that if the Lokayukta has exceeded its jurisdiction his action can be called in question in appropriate court. We are of the view that in view of S. 8(b)(i) and 8(b)(ii) the Lokyukta had no jurisdiction to investigate in respect of a matter which arose out of a contract and in respect of which relief could be obtained from court of law. Section 8 specifically ousts the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta in regard to matters covered by Sections 8(b)(i) and 8(b)(ii). The relevant words used are "the Lokayukta..... shall not conduct any investigation under the Act." Then cl. (b) indicates that in regard to matters of contract and in regard to matters in respect of which relief can be obtained from the court the investigation by the Lokayukta is clearly barred. On account of the bar created by S. 8 we are of the view that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate about the claim as the question related to payment of security money. If opposite party 2 was aggrieved by any action of the petitioner the proper remedy for him was to file a regular suit. In view of S. 8 the opposite party is precluded from obtaining the said relief. The ground is that the Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in respect of matters arising out of a contract and in respect of matters in which relief may be obtained from the court of law. 9. The facts stated above would indicate that in the first instance opposite party 2 attempted to obtain relief and served a notice under S. 80, C.P.C., on the petitioners. He also filed proceedings under the Arbitration Act for payment-of money. When he failed in these attempts he made grievance to the Lokayukta for action being taken against the petitioners for the recovery of the amount. Investigation of such a grievance is clearly barred by S. 8 of the Act. 10. The opposite party 1 advanced elaborate arguments on the merits of the case. During the course of arguments we clearly pointed out to opposite party 1 that this court would first hear arguments on the question of jurisdiction and if the court was satisfied that the Lokayukta had the jurisdiction to investigate the case of petitioners would be examined on merits. The opposite party 2 adopted the arguments of Mr. During the course of arguments we clearly pointed out to opposite party 1 that this court would first hear arguments on the question of jurisdiction and if the court was satisfied that the Lokayukta had the jurisdiction to investigate the case of petitioners would be examined on merits. The opposite party 2 adopted the arguments of Mr. K. B. Sinha on the question of jurisdiction and did not advance any separate argument but proceeded to argue the case on merits. We informed Mr. Batla that if the finding on the question of jurisdiction is that the Lokayukta had the jurisdiction to investigate the case then we would hear his arguments on merits and if we are of the view that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate the case there would be no occasion for hearing opposite party 1 on merits. We have come to the conclusion that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate the claim made by the petitioner in regard to the payment of money. 11. For the reasons stated above we are of the view that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate the claim in regard to the return of security to opposite party. In this view of the matter the recommendation made by the Lokayukta Annexure I is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to make such a recommendation as the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the court of law. We accordingly allow the writ petition. Set aside the order passed by the Lokayukta - Annexure I - dated 1st February, 1980 - In the circumstances of the case we direct that the costs of the petition shall be borne by the parties.