S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ applications arise out of an order dt. 10-5-1999 passed by the Upa- lokayukta in Complaint No. 367/99/b2 whereby and whereunder it was held:"in view of the recent decision of the apex Court wherein while dealing with the question as to whether the institution of Lok Ayukta and Upa- lok Ayukta have got jurisdiction to enquire into the matter about the disproportionate assets of a public servant, their Lordships set aside the orders passed by the Kamataka Lok ayukta Institution holding that the institution has no jurisdiction in that regard. That being so, as regards disproportionate assets this matter is referred to the Vigilance commissioner of Andhra Pradesh for ordering necessary probe and taking action in accordance with law". ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in State of karnataka vs. Kempaiah, that the Institution of Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation. ( 3 ) THE jurisdiction of Lokayukta and upa-Lokayukta is circumscribed by the portion of the order whereby the cases have been referred to the Vigilance commissioner of Andhra Pradesh is set aside. No order as to costs. statutory provisions. The Institution of lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta must act within the four corners of the statute. The order impugned before us is supported by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the ground that such a power exists under Rule 5 (8) of the Andhra pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Investigation) Rules, 1984, which reads thus:"nothing prevents the Lok Ayukta or upa-Lok Ayukta from closing a complaint at any stage and referring it to the concerned departmental authorities for appropriate action". ( 4 ) RECOURSE to the said rule can be taken only upon investigation. Where Lokayukta has no jurisdiction at all, the question of investigation does not arise and consequently Rule 5 (8) has no application in such a case. Any order passed or any observation made contrary to the provisions of the statute would be a nullity. We, therefore, do not see any force in the contention of the respondents herein. ( 5 ) MR. G. Peddababu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Anti Corruption bureau, submits that his client can take cognizance of any offence upon receipt of any information from any source whatsoever. We, therefore, do not see any force in the contention of the respondents herein. ( 5 ) MR. G. Peddababu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Anti Corruption bureau, submits that his client can take cognizance of any offence upon receipt of any information from any source whatsoever. We do not intend to go into such question. But there cannot be any doubt, whatsoever, that even initiation of proceeding must precede the satisfaction of mind of competent authority that prima facie a case for investigation has been made out and the said application must be based on the source of the information received by the Anti Corruption Bureau and the materials placed before it and not upon the direction of a statutory authority, which had no jurisdiction in that regard. ( 6 ) FOR the reason aforementioned, these writ applications are allowed and that portion of the order whereby the cases have been referred to the Vigilance commissioner of Andhra Pradesh is set aside. No order as to costs.