JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the report Annexure-L dtd. 6/5/2017 submitted by respondent No.2 under Sec. 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('for short 'KL Act') directing respondent No.1 for shifting of the petitioner's school from its existing place. 2. The petitioner school is run by Lions Education Society in KRS Agrahara, Kuvempunagar, Kunigal Town. The society is a registered society. In 1991 the school started for classes 1 to 4 in English medium under the Registration Certificate Annexure-A. From time to time, the school was expanded and the registration was also renewed by the competent authorities. Last such renewals were under Annexure-C dtd. 17/8/2015 to run pre-primary school for the period 2015-2016 to 2019-2020, Annexure-D dtd. 30/9/2014 for classes 1 to 7 from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019. Under Annexure-E dtd. 14/7/2014 renewal was granted for classes 9 and 10 for the period 2014-2015 to 2018-2019. 3. One S.R.Girish Chandra filed the complaint before respondent No.4 alleging that the school is in residential locality and noise of loud speakers and children is causing nuisance to the neighbours. It was further alleged that the complaint given by him to the concerned authorities of the Education Department has not yielded any result, therefore, he filed complaint before respondent No.2. 4. Based on such complaint, respondent No.2 called upon the report of the Block Education Officer, Kunigal and the petitioner submitted the reply to the said complaint. Respondent No.2 submitted the impugned report Annexure-L dtd. 6/5/2017 under Sec. 12(1) of the KL Act opining that use of loud speaker is causing nuisance to the neighbours and there was no good environment for the children. Respondent No.2 further directed the competent authority for shifting the school from the said area. 5. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said report on the following three grounds: (i) Bar of jurisdiction under Sec. 8(1)(b) of KL Act; (ii) Bar of limitation under Sec. 8(2) of KL Act; and (iii) Non compliance of principles of natural justice. 6. Sri M.Vinaya Keerthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds of petition submits that the report is without jurisdiction and barred by law and therefore liable to be quashed. 7. 6. Sri M.Vinaya Keerthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds of petition submits that the report is without jurisdiction and barred by law and therefore liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, Sri Venkatesh S.Arbatti, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 submits that, only the show cause notice is issued to the petitioner and it is open to it to submit its defence to the show cause notice. Therefore, the petition is premature one. The contention regarding Ss. 8(1)(b) and 8(2) of the KL Act are unsustainable. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. On considering the submissions of both side and the material on record, the questions that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the report Annexure-L is hit by Sec. 8(1)(b) of the KL Act ? ii) Whether the report Annexure-L is hit by Sec. 8(2) of the KL Act ? Reg. Sec. 8(1) (b) of KL Act: 9. The impugned report Annexure-L itself states that it is submitted under Sec. 12(1) of the KL Act. Sec. 12(1) of the KL Act reads as follows: "12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.- (1) If, after investigation of any action involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report." 10. The reading of the above provision shows that the investigation report under that Sec. relates to grievance. The term "grievance" is defined in Sec. 2(8) of the KL Act as follows: "(8) "grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration; 11. The complaint is that the running of the school is causing undue hardship to the complainant in consequence of the failure of the concerned for not attending the said complaint. Sec. 8(1) of the KL Act speaks of the matters which are not subject to the investigation. The same reads as follows: "8. The complaint is that the running of the school is causing undue hardship to the complainant in consequence of the failure of the concerned for not attending the said complaint. Sec. 8(1) of the KL Act speaks of the matters which are not subject to the investigation. The same reads as follows: "8. Matters not subject to investigation.- (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, - (a) if such action relates to any matter specified in the second Schedule; or (b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or other proceedings before any Tribunal, Court officer or other authority and has not availed of the same." The reading of Sec. 8(1)(b) of KL Act shows that, if the complainant had any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or other proceedings before any Tribunal/Court Officer or other authority and he has not availed the same, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta are not entitled to conduct the investigation. The allegation of the complainant is that the running of the school is causing hardship to the neighbouring residents, therefore the school shall be shifted. Ss. 132 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1985 ('KE Act' for short) provides the remedy of appeals, revision, review against the order of the authorities issuing or renewing the registration certificate to run the school or renewal of the same. Similarly Sec. 133 of the KE Act empowers the Government to give directions to the Commissioner of Public Instruction, Director or any Officer not below the rank of the District Educational Officer to make enquiry or to take appropriate proceedings under the Act in respect of any matter specified in the order. Thus it becomes clear that, if the concerned authority failed to perform, the remedies under the KE Act were open to the complainant. But, he has not availed that remedy by filing appeal, revision, review or seeking any directions from the Government for shifting of the school. The availability of such remedies and the complainant not availing the same in case of grievance clearly bars the jurisdiction of the second respondent to investigate into the matter in view of Sec. 8(1)(b) of the KL Act. Therefore, the impugned report Annexure-L was without jurisdiction. The availability of such remedies and the complainant not availing the same in case of grievance clearly bars the jurisdiction of the second respondent to investigate into the matter in view of Sec. 8(1)(b) of the KL Act. Therefore, the impugned report Annexure-L was without jurisdiction. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of this Court in Subhindra A Gumaste vs. The State of Karnataka, [ W.P.Nos.25078-80/2016 DD 15/7/2016] . Reg. Sec. 8(2) of K L Act: 12. As already noted, the report Annexure-L was in a complaint involving the grievance against the petitioner running the school which is causing hardship to the complainant and other neighbours. Sec. 8(2)(c) of the KL Act reads as follows: "8(2) The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not investigate, - (c) any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant; or" Reading of Sec. 8(2)(c) of the KL Act bars the second respondent from investigating such complaint, if the same is filed after expiry of six months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant. 13. As already noticed and as evident from Annexure-B the school is being run since 1991-92. The complainant claims to be the neighbour of the school. The renewal of the registration was last effected during 2014-15 for the period upto 2019-20. The report Annexure-L does not refer to the date of the complaint. As per the petitioner the said complaint was filed on 25/10/2016. The said statement is not disputed. Moreover the correspondences Annexures-J and K show that the complaint was filed in the year 2016. The complainant, though was resident of the same area, filed the complaint after 17 years of commencement of the school or at least after more than one year from the date of renewal of the school under Annexures-D and E. The second respondent-Upa-Lokayukta was clearly barred from investigating in such complaint. On that count also Annexure-L is liable to be quashed. 14. In the judgment of this Court in V.Narayana vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd, [W.P.No.24273/2015 DD 9/12/2015 ] it was held that the petition against the show cause notice is prematured one. The said judgment would have been applicable if there was no legal bar for respondent No.2 to investigate into the matter. 14. In the judgment of this Court in V.Narayana vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd, [W.P.No.24273/2015 DD 9/12/2015 ] it was held that the petition against the show cause notice is prematured one. The said judgment would have been applicable if there was no legal bar for respondent No.2 to investigate into the matter. Since the investigation and consequent report Annexure-L themselves were barred by law, as discussed above, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned report Annexure-L in No.complaint/Upalok/BD.2430/2016/ARLO dtd. 6/5/2017 is hereby quashed. iii) Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 are hereby directed not to take coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of Annexure-L. Liberty is reserved to them to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1985.