R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) A registered Trade Union has filed this petition by way of public interest against the State of Karnataka, Lokayukta and three other officials of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. , seeking for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigating the alleged mis-appropriation, misdeeds, and mismanagement committed by the respondents 4 to 6 (officials of the Company) on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner herein. An additional direction is also sought for a further investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta in addition to other prayers. ( 2 ) PETITIONER states that the petitioner is taking keen interest in the growth of Industries in the State of Karnataka. The Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. (KSDL) had entrusted the Security system on the basis of yearly contract to one M/s. Federal Intelligence and Security Bureau on certain mutual agreed terms between the parties. The 4th respondent later called for tenders in September, 1998 for security system and there were twelve Security Agencies who participated in the tender contract. Finally the said tender had been allotted to EDA Associates, Bangalore in an illegal manner. Petitioner filed a complaint against the grant of security system to EDA by accusing the respondents 4 to 6 of various misdeeds before Lokayukta. Lokayukta sought for objections from respondents 4 to 6 after investigation and thereafter issued an endorsement as per annexure G. Thereafter the petitioner also sought for prosecution of respondents 4 to 6 for misappropriation in the matter of awarding contract. Subsequently the matter was taken before the Chief Minister by way of representation. Now the Lokayukta has issued an endorsement on 29-5-2000 after investigation closing the case u/s. 9 (6) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for Short Act ). According to the petition averments respondent 3 without going into all the contentions raised by the petitioner and having hand in glove with respondents 4 to 6 deliberately closed the matter without any explanation. In these circumstances the petitioner seeks for prayer for referring the matter of CBI and for further investigation by respondent 3. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. ( 4 ) PETITIONER's counsel reiterated the facts and grounds raised in the petition. In addition he also complained that the Lokayukta has failed to conduct the enquiry in a manner known to law. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. ( 4 ) PETITIONER's counsel reiterated the facts and grounds raised in the petition. In addition he also complained that the Lokayukta has failed to conduct the enquiry in a manner known to law. He also stated that there are no reasons forthcoming in Annexure L dt. 29-5-2000. ( 5 ) PETITIONER's main prayer is for a direction to refer the enquiry to CBI against respondents 4 to 6. Admittedly the petitioner has availed a remedy in terms of provisions of Lokayukta Act. A complaint had been filed and after investigation the Lokayukta u/s. 9 (6) of the Act have issued an endorsement ordering closure of the case on the ground of non-substantiation of the allegations made by the petitioner. A statutory authority having necessary power jurisdiction has gone into the specific allegations against respondents 4 to 6 public servants and has closed the case on account of non-substantiation of the allegations. These being the facts of the case, it is not open to the petitioner to seek a direction to CBI in the absence of any fresh material forthcoming in the petition warranting any further investigation either by Lokayukta or an enquiry by CBI. Except making some bald allegations, no pleadings or proof worth consideration has been placed in the petition by the petitioner for any such direction. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances we are not inclined to grant the prayer of investigation by CBI particularly after an investigation and satisfaction of non-subtantiation of the charges by the petitioner before Lokayukta that too after an enquiry under the Act. ( 7 ) PETITIONERS' only argument before us is that the enquiry is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there are no reasons in the endorsement. Admittedly the petitioner has not challenged the endorsement in the writ petition as could be seen from the prayer made in para 28 of the prayer. Secondly, what is issued to the petitioner is only an endorsement under S. 9 (6 ). The Lokayukta must have recorded reasons as required under the Act. Reasons shall not be forthcoming in a communication of closure of the case as per the endorsement Annexure L. Hence, the contentions of 'no reasons' is not acceptable to us. Secondly, what is issued to the petitioner is only an endorsement under S. 9 (6 ). The Lokayukta must have recorded reasons as required under the Act. Reasons shall not be forthcoming in a communication of closure of the case as per the endorsement Annexure L. Hence, the contentions of 'no reasons' is not acceptable to us. Petitioner has also chosen to make certain allegations against Lokayukta without there being any factual foundation whatsover in the petition. We deprecate such allegations against a statutory authority. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances we are clearly of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner warranting any further direction from us as sought for in the petition. Writ petition is rejected. Since no notice is ordered to respondent, we are not ordering any costs on the petitioner in the absence of appearance of the respondents before us. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .