ORDER : Alok Aradhe, J. Heard on the question of admission. In this writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondent No.4 to register First Information Report against respondents No.5 to 15. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a Leader of Opposition of Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No.1 is the University set up under the Madhya Pradesh Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Avam Sanchar Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1990 Act [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"]. The respondent No.2 to 4 are the Authorities defined under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "1981 Act"). The respondents No.5 to 7 are hold the posts in the General Council. It has been alleged that respondents No.5 to 7 have appointed respondents No.8 to 15 by unlawful means, fraud and corruption as also in violation of statutory provisions. It is also averred that petitioner having acquired knowledge of the illegal appointments of respondents No.8 to 15 by respondents No.5 to 7, submitted First Information Report in the Office of respondent no.4 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 402, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has raised certain queries vide communication dated 20.5.2014, inter alia, with regard to violation of the provisions of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the action of respondent no.4 in sending the communication is contrary to law laid down by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 . In the aforesaid factual backdrop the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 19, 19A, 201, 21, 22, 24, 29 and 33 of the Act as well as Regulations No.3, 6 and 9 of the Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Avam Sanchar Vishwavidyalaya Recruitment and Conditions of Service Regulations, 2006 (for short "2006 Regulations"). 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 19, 19A, 201, 21, 22, 24, 29 and 33 of the Act as well as Regulations No.3, 6 and 9 of the Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Avam Sanchar Vishwavidyalaya Recruitment and Conditions of Service Regulations, 2006 (for short "2006 Regulations"). It is further submitted that without issuing any advertisement and on super session of power of General Council, respondents No.8 to 15 have been appointed in an unlawful manner by respondents No.5 to 7 and their appointments are ab initio void which cannot be ratified. It is also urged that while making appointments procedure established by law was thrown to the winds for private purposes. It is also submitted that First Information Report submitted by the petitioner discloses commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, in view of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra), the respondent No.4 is under an obligation to register F.I.R. as the same discloses commission of cognizable offence. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132 , Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and others, (1991) 4 SCC 54 and Lalita Kumari (supra). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that, in fact, information has been sought by respondent No.4 vide communication dated 20.5.2014 in response to the direction issued by Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). It is further submitted that petitioner himself was a Member of Governing Council and appointments in question, which were made on contract basis, were made in November, 2010 and March, 2011, which come to an end by efflux of time, much prior to filing of writ petition. It is further submitted that First Information Report has been lodged after an inordinate delay. In this connection, attention of this Court has been invited to paragraph 120 of the decision in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). It is also submitted that reliance placed on behalf of petitioner on the Regulations framed by UGC is misconceived as the same does not have application to the case of University established under the law enacted by the State Legislature. It is also submitted that reliance placed on behalf of petitioner on the Regulations framed by UGC is misconceived as the same does not have application to the case of University established under the law enacted by the State Legislature. In this connection, reference has been made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of (2015) 6 SCC 636. Learned counsel also submitted that in Writ Petition No.1728/2011 the appointment of respondents No.8 to 15 was called in question in which prayer has been made for registration of offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has submitted that respondent No.4 has rightly made the queries vide communication dated 20.5.2014 and the petitioner instead of answering the queries has rushed to the Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of complaint (Annexure-P-9) submitted by petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment Office of Lokayukt, Bhopal it is evident that complaint has been filed under the provisions of 1981 Act. M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 is an Act to make provisions for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for enquiry into the allegations against public servants and for matter connected therewith. The Act was enacted with an object to constitute Lokayukt Organization, which replaced the Vigilance Commission. Lokayukt Organization is an organization which is set up under an enactment made by the State Legislature. Having received the statutory sanction, the Lokayukt Organization is totally free from executive influence. The organization functions as an instrument of control over the executive by the Legislature as its annual reports are submitted to the Governor to be laid and discussed in the State Legislative Assembly. Having received the statutory sanction, the Lokayukt Organization is totally free from executive influence. The organization functions as an instrument of control over the executive by the Legislature as its annual reports are submitted to the Governor to be laid and discussed in the State Legislative Assembly. Section 2(a) of the Act defines "officer" which reads as under:- "2(a) "Officer" means a person appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh." Section 2 (b) defines the expression "allegation which reads as under:- "2(b) "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 to any person; (ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functioning as such public servant by improper or corrupt motives; (iii) is guilty of corruption; or (iv) is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income and such pecuniary resources or property is held by the public servant personally or by any member of his family or by some other person on his behalf. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-clause "family" means husband, wife, sons and unmarried daughters living jointly with him." 7. Section 9 of 1981 Act deals with provisions relating to complaints. Section 10 prescribes procedure in respect of an enquiry. It empowers the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt to decide the procedure to be followed for making the enquiry, and in so doing, ensure that the principles of natural justice are satisfied. Section 12 of the Act provides that if after enquiry into the allegations the Lokayukt or an Up-Lokayukt is satisfied that such allegation is established, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant document, materials and other evidence to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority is under the obligation to examine the report and to initiate within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. 8. The Competent Authority is under the obligation to examine the report and to initiate within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. 8. Thus, from perusal of the provisions of the Act it is graphically clear that the Act has been enacted with the object to investigate cases of corruption in public life and provides for an inbuilt mechanism in respect of complaint with regard to corruption by an officer appointed to a public service or post in connection with affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the provisions of the 1981 Act are complete Code in itself and provide a remedy to an aggrieved person. 9. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has invoked the remedy provided to him under the provisions of the 1981 Act and has not lodged any First Information Report to the Police Authorities, therefore, the decision rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) has no application to the fact situation of the present case. In pursuance to the complaint made by petitioner, the respondent No.4 has sought certain information from the petitioner. The petitioner instead of furnishing information to the respondent No.4 has approached this Court with a direction to lodge First Information Report against the respondents No.5 to 15 in view of law laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). It is well settled in law that a person cannot be allowed to prosecute two remedies simultaneously. [See: Bank of India v. Lakshimani Dass, AIR 2000 SC 1172 and Kumud Kumar v. Central Bank of India and another, AIR 2000 SC 3552 ]. The matter is pending before the respondent No.4, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue the remedy invoked by him. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition dismissed.