Judgment : Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. In terms of our earlier order dated 04.02.2014, report of the Regional Joint Director dated 06.12.2013 has been produced. We thought on that day that report would be relevant and appropriate to decide the matter, but when we received the copy of the complaint made by the unofficial respondent, who happens to be a learned lawyer of the District Court and appears in-person, we think that the report is not required to be considered at all. Pursuant to the complaint dated 13.05.2013 made by the unofficial respondent, the Lokayukta assumed jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction in any sense either to entertain the complaint or to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta submits that the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as mentioned under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, which is quoted hereunder: “7. Matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta:-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at the behest of, - (i) a Minister or a Secretary; or (ii) a Member of either House of the State Legislature; or (iii) a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; or (iiia) a Vice Chancellor or a Registrar of a University; or (iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf after consultation with the Lokayukta, in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Upa-Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant, other than those referred to in sub-section (1), in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation. (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (2), the Lokayukta may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any allegation in respect of an action which may be investigated by the Upa-Lokayukta under that sub-section, whether or not complaint has been made to the Lokayukta in respect of such action. (4) Where two or more Upa-Lokayuktas are appointed under this Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act. Provided that no investigation made by the Upa-Lokayukta under this Act and no action taken or thing done by him in respect of such investigation shall be called in question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order.” He has also submitted that the word “action” mentioned in Section 7 has been defined in Section 2(a), which is very exhaustive and inclusive one. So we reproduce the definition of Section 2(a). “2(a) ‘action’ means an administrative action taken by a public servant by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner, and includes any omission and commission and failure to act in connection with or arising out of such action; and all other expressions connecting action shall be construed accordingly.” According to him, the action includes inaction in not taking action. Now considering his contention, we examine whether the Lokayukta can enquire into absolute inaction or not as is the case here. It appears that the aforesaid definition appears to be very special and unique. According to us, action means administrative action taken by a public servant by way of decision, recommendation or finding or any other manner, meaning thereby, the Lokayukta will enquire into any action taken originally and further if the public servant does omit or fail to act, after taking such decision, recommendation or finding, to clarify it there must be some action taken which requires enquiry by the Lokayukta and if no action is taken pursuant to the decision taken, then Lokayukta can entertain such complaint. It is clear from qualifying word “such” before the word action employed in Section 2(a) of the Act. According to us, in case of total inaction under any provision of law the Lokayukta cannot entertain any complaint. It is clear from qualifying word “such” before the word action employed in Section 2(a) of the Act. According to us, in case of total inaction under any provision of law the Lokayukta cannot entertain any complaint. The failure in or omission in taking action must be preceded by decision, recommendation, finding in contrast to absolute inaction since beginning. The object of the Act is to look into the propriety, legality and validity of the decision or the action taken by the public servant and to activate the public servant to implement or execute such decision. A reading of Section 7 shows that the complaint must relate to or against the persons mentioned therein, which in clear term exclude applicability to the private individuals. In this case, we find the complaint has been made by the unofficial respondent basically against the school authorities, namely; the petitioner herein, who is a private artificial individual and not against any Government officials. To support our finding, we set out the relevant portion of the complaint as follows: “Sub:- (1) Unauthorized private school situated at H.No.2-7-1165, Kankadurga Colony, Warangal (Mahathi High School) running with the support of Regional Joint director of School Education, Warangal and Deputy Educational Officer, Warangal. (2) Admissions for the academic year 2013-2014 are going on with the support of above two officers. (3) Request to take action against the school and provide relief to the surrounding residents and protect the quality of education and request to take action on the officers concerned.” At the end, prayer has been made, which reads as follows: “My humbly submission to My Lord is to kindly close the school in the larger interest of the quality of school education and health and environmental conditions of the locality.” A reading of the above prayer shows that it is not a complaint in relation to the action of any officials mentioned in Section 7. The complainant, who appears in-person, says that his grievance is against the public servant for not taking action. The complaint does not speak so. In our considered view, as correctly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the language mentioned in the four corners of the complaint, the Lokayukta can not take cognizance of this complaint and it should have been returned. The complaint does not speak so. In our considered view, as correctly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the language mentioned in the four corners of the complaint, the Lokayukta can not take cognizance of this complaint and it should have been returned. For the time being we hold that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction with regard to the subject matter of the complaint. Accordingly, the order passed by the Lokayukta is not sustainable and so also the complaint made to it. The entire proceedings are set aside and quashed. However, liberty is given to the complainant, who appears in-person, to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate complaint and this order will not stand in the way. The complainant appears in-person and took unnecessary time of the Court and wasted the Court’s valuable time making irrelevant submissions. He is learned lawyer, he should know where to start and where to stop. In this matter, the issue was whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction in the subject matter of the complaint or not. He argues not only on the merit of the case but also telling the Court about the constitutional jurisprudence with regard to the duty of the judiciary. Therefore, we are inclined to award cost. Because he is a member of the profession, we restrained ourselves from imposing exemplary cost, we impose costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to be paid by the unofficial respondent - complainant to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority within a period of one week from today so that in future this sort of wastage of time is avoided. At 4.00 P.M., the complainant says that he is practising in subordinate Courts and does not know the practice and procedure of this Court and he is still coming up in the profession and because of his inexperience, he made unnecessary arguments unintentionally. He tenders apology. In view of his submission, we delete the order of payment of costs, meaning thereby, that there will be no order as to costs. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.