JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 2. The petitioner which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is aggrieved by an order dated 29.11.2006 and 7.12.2006 by which the Lokayukta, Dehradun has passed certain orders which affect the society i.e. petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that certain complaints were made to the Lokayukta, Uttarakhand by his neighbours and particularly respondent no. 2 regarding certain constructions made by the petitioner in which cognizance has been taken by the Lokayukta. By the impugned order the Lokayukta has directed the Nagar Nigam to construct a drainage on the property of the petitioner and in effect it would also be a direction for removing the constructions made by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Lokayukta for passing such orders. 3. The petitioner has referred to Section 8(1) of U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 which relates to the matter which are not subject matter of the Lokayukta. Section 8 (1) of U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 reads as under : “8. Matters not subject to investigation. – (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act – (a) except on a complaint made under and in accordance with Section 9; or (b) in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, - (i) if such action relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule; or (ii) if the complainant has or had any remedy by way of proceeding before any Tribunal or Court of law : Provided that nothing in sub-clause (ii) shall prevent the Lokayukta or an 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.” 4. The Third schedule which is referred in Section 8 (1) of the Act, reads as under : “THE THIRD SCHEDULE [See Section 8 (1) (b) (i)] (a) Action taken for the purpose of investigating crime or protecting the security of the State. The Third schedule which is referred in Section 8 (1) of the Act, reads as under : “THE THIRD SCHEDULE [See Section 8 (1) (b) (i)] (a) Action taken for the purpose of investigating crime or protecting the security of the State. (b) Action taken in the exercise of powers in relation to determining whether a matter shall go to, or shall continue to be prosecuted in a court or not. (c) Action taken in matters which arise out of the terms of contract governing purely commercial relations of the administration of the Government or of the local authority or other corporation, company or society, as the case may be, with customers or suppliers except where the complainant alleges harassment or gross delay in meeting contractual obligations. (d) Action taken in respect of appointments [other than an appointment referred to in clause (ii) of clause (d) of Section 2)], removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but not including action relating to claims, for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arise on retirement, removal or termination of service. (e) Grant of honours and awards.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Siddharth Singh submits that the investigation and the subsequent action taken by the Lokayukta are barred by Section 8 (1) read with the Third Schedule, as regarding such matter the rightful remedy for the respondent, if any, is to initiate a proceeding in a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Lokayukta was barred by Section 8 (1) of the Act, and it is without jurisdiction. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Siddharth Singh, learned State Counsel Mr. Paresh Tripathi and learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam Mr. Arvind Vashisth, this Court is of a considered view that at the root of the present matter is a “civil dispute” regarding certain constructions made by the petitioner or certain amenities which are liable to be given to respondent no. 2 or their neighbours who may also ask interference from the Nagar Nigam. This is not a matter where the Lokayukta can take cognizance and it is well outside its jurisdiction. 7. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 29.11.2006 and 7.12.2006 are hereby quashed. It is made clear that respondent no. 2 or their neighbours who may also ask interference from the Nagar Nigam. This is not a matter where the Lokayukta can take cognizance and it is well outside its jurisdiction. 7. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 29.11.2006 and 7.12.2006 are hereby quashed. It is made clear that respondent no. 2 or any other person aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part of the petitioner or Nagar Nigam, Dehradun is at a liberty to raise a dispute including, a civil suit before the appropriate forum, and any observations which have been made by this Court in the present writ petition shall not prejudice the case of such persons. 8. No order as to costs.