JUDGMENT : Nitin Jamdar, C. J. The Lok Ayukta on a complaint filed by Respondent No.1 held that deduction of income tax and surcharge by the Appellants – the Branch Manager and Managing Director of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., was illegal and directed the Appellants to pay the amount deducted from the monthly rent payable to Respondent No. 1 with interest. This order is confirmed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 14 October 2015 in W.P.(C) No.24486 of 2007. The question that is raised in this appeal filed by the Appellants is as to whether the Lok Ayukta could have issued such a mandatory direction upon adjudication. 2. Respondent No.1 E.M. Nazeer, had constructed a shopping complex in his property in Survey No. 107 of Vithura Village by name, N.N. Arcade. The Appellant, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., had obtained a portion of the building on the first floor for functioning of its branch with carpet area of 2350 square feets at the rate of Rs.3 per sq. ft. on 5 May 2003. Nazeer had executed a power of attorney in favour of his father, as Nazeer was leaving the country to seek employment. The Financial Enterprises treating Nazeer as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) liable to pay income tax on the rent of Rs.2,64,649/-due from 5 May 2003 to 5 November 2005 for 31 months with interest, paid an amount of Rs.1,46,149/- and deducted the tax at source. 3. Nazeer sent a notice to the Financial Enterprises on 15 December 2005 seeking the balance rent. It was the case of Nazeer that when he approached the Financial Enterprises, its officer demanded illegal gratification for release of the amount. 4. Nazeer approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram by Complaint No. 566/2006, contending that the Financial Enterprises has deducted the tax at source illegally and against the terms of the rental agreement between the parties on the premise that Nazeer is an NRI. Nazeer alleged in the complaint that the officers of the Financial Enterprises had demanded illegal gratification for the release of the balance amount. 5. The Financial Enterprises filed a counter statement before the Lok Ayukta and contended that the claim of Nazeer that he was not liable to pay income tax is not correct. The tax was deducted at source correctly and it has also been remitted in the Government treasury. 5. The Financial Enterprises filed a counter statement before the Lok Ayukta and contended that the claim of Nazeer that he was not liable to pay income tax is not correct. The tax was deducted at source correctly and it has also been remitted in the Government treasury. The allegations of illegal gratification were denied. 6. The Lok Ayukta found no merit in the allegations of corruption and demand of illegal gratification. However, the Lok Ayukta proceeded to adjudicate the rival contentions and declared that the deduction of income tax at source by the Financial Enterprises was illegal and unsustainable and that Nazeer can claim refund of the amount and accordingly, directed the Financial Enterprises to pay the amount deducted from the monthly rent payable to Nazeer towards income tax and surcharge on income tax with effect from 5 May 2003 to 5 May 2006 with interest thereon at the market rate prevalent during the relevant period within two months from the date of receipt of the order and to file an action taken report. 7. The Financial Enterprises filed W.P.(C) No.24486 of 2007 in this Court challenging the order passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 566/2006 dated 28 June 2007. 8. Before the learned Single Judge the Financial Enterprises advanced twofold contentions. Firstly, the Lok Ayukta did not have jurisdiction to issue a positive mandate and that, the Lok Ayukta could not have entered into an adjudication of disputed questions and determined liability arising from agreement of payment of rent. Secondly, even on merits, the order passed by the Lok Ayukta is entirely incorrect. 9. The learned Single Judge noted the contention of the Financial Enterprises that the direction issued by the Lok Ayukta is beyond the scope of the power vested in it under the statute, however, did not record any specific finding about the same in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge also held that in the case of NRI, income tax at source should be deducted without any limit of income from the rent payable. It was further held that even assuming that deduction at source was legal, the Financial Enterprises failed to issue certificate to Nazeer. The learned Single Judge accordingly concluded that no interference was warranted in the order passed by the Lok Ayukta and dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 14 October 2015. It was further held that even assuming that deduction at source was legal, the Financial Enterprises failed to issue certificate to Nazeer. The learned Single Judge accordingly concluded that no interference was warranted in the order passed by the Lok Ayukta and dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 14 October 2015. Being aggrieved, the Financial Enterprises are before us with this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 10. The appeal was admitted by order dated 22 November 2016 and the operation of the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24486 of 2007 was stayed. 11. We have heard Sri. Jai Mohan, learned counsel for the Appellants State Financial Enterprises, Sri. A.S. Shammy Raj, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 -E.M. Nazeer, and Smt. Renu D.P., learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 12. The learned counsel for the Appellants Financial Enterprises in brief contended as follows: The order passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.566/2006 dated 28 June 2007 is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Section 12 of the Act of 1999. The position of law laid down in the case of State of Kerala v. Bernard[2002(3)KLT254] applies to the facts of this case. The decision in the case of Bernard was cited before the learned Single Judge in furtherance of his contention regarding jurisdiction, however, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with this aspect. The observation of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that no certificates were issued is wrong, as fourteen certificates which were issued are already part of the record. No evidence was produced by Nazeer regarding his NRI status and mere affidavit, that too filed after the deductions on 30 August 2006, could not have taken the place of proof of the status as an NRI. Nothing stopped Nazeer from producing documentary evidence such as passport on record. The amounts deducted towards TDS are already transferred to the Government treasury and, therefore, the direction to refund the amount is, in fact, adjudication of the rental agreement which is not permissible. 13. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 Nazeer sought to justify the order passed by the Lok Ayukta on merits to contend that the deductions by the Financial Enterprises were erroneous and illegal in law and that, there is no error in directing refund of the amount. 13. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 Nazeer sought to justify the order passed by the Lok Ayukta on merits to contend that the deductions by the Financial Enterprises were erroneous and illegal in law and that, there is no error in directing refund of the amount. It was contended that Nazeer had produced the affidavit on record regarding the status of not being an NRI, which was rightly relied upon by the Lok Ayukta. On the point of jurisdiction, it was contended that Nazeer had alleged that the officers of the Financial Enterprises had sought illegal gratification, and therefore, the Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and pass orders. 14. We have considered the rival contentions. 15. The Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (Act of 1999) is an Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of authorities for making enquiries into any action, omission and commission relatable to matters specified in List II or List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India taken by or on behalf of Government of Kerala or certain public authorities in the State of Kerala. Section 2(a) of the Act defines an action, which means any action, including administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes wilful failure or omission to act and all other expressions relating to such action shall be construed accordingly. 16. Allegation is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 2009 in relation to a public servant that he has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives; or is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. The competent authority to whom report is made has to intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lok Ayukta the action taken in the report. The competent authority has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. Grievance is defined under Section 2(h) to mean a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. 17. The competent authority has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. Grievance is defined under Section 2(h) to mean a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. 17. Section 3 of the Act of 1999 contemplates the appointment of Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas. The qualifications to hold the office of Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas are provided under Section 3. Section 7 of the Act of 1999 provides for the matters which has to be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas. The Lok Ayukta can investigate into Allegations of the Action, as defined under sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 2. Section 8 of the Act provides for the matters which are not subjected to investigation. Section 9 stipulates provisions relating to complaints and investigations and the manner in which complaints are to be lodged and investigated. Section 10 of the Act empowers the Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayuktas to issue search warrants. The provisions for taking evidence are stipulated under Section 11. Since this Petition concerns with the order passed by the Lok Ayukta and not by Upa-Lok Ayukta, we have referred to Lok Ayukta while dealing with the statutory provisions, though the statute at many places used both Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta. 18. Section 12 of the Act of 1999 provides for report of the Lok Ayukta. Since Section 12 deals with jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta, it would be necessary to reproduce the said provision. Section 12 reads as under: 12. Reports of Lok Ayukta etc.- (1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving grievance has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta 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 and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within onemonth of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated, as the case may be, to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta the action taken on the report. (3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving an allegation has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated, either wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report. (4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and, within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (5) If the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case, under intimation to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant. (6) The Lok Ayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions as well as the functions of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, to the Governor. (7) On receipt of the special report under sub-section (5) or the annual report under sub-section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof, together with an explanatory memorandum, to be laid before the Legislative Assembly. (8) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, at his discretion, make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest, in such manner and to such persons, as he may deem appropriate.” 19. This is in short the relevant legislative scheme. This is in short the relevant legislative scheme. Rest of the provisions of the Act of 1999 are not relevant for the purpose of present discussion. 20. A Grievance refers to a complaint that an individual has been subjected to injustice on account of negligence, act of omission or commission, or delay on the part of a public authority. An Allegation refers to personal interest or improper or corrupt motives, or is intended to cause gain to the public authority or to any other person, or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person. In respect of a complaint pertaining to any action involving a grievance, after investigation, the Lok Ayukta is required to make a report in writing recommending to the competent authority that injustice or hardship as complained of has occurred and that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as contained in the report and shall also intimate the complainant of having made such a report. When such a report is received by the competent authority to whom the report is sent under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act of 1999, he is required to intimate the Lok Ayukta within one month of the period specified in the report, the action taken on the report. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 refers to the procedure in respect of Allegation. Under subsection (5) of Section 12, procedure is laid down regarding the report and closure. The Act of 1999 does not postulate that in a complaint involving a grievance, the Lok Ayukta can pass a binding order which is enforceable as against a public servant whose action is under investigation or the competent authority or the State Government. Lok Ayukta can investigate the grievance and thereafter recommend the remedial measures to the competent authority. With regard to an investigation made into a complaint involving an allegation, the function of the Lok Ayukta and procedure are different. In this case, the Lok Ayukta has found no merit in the allegation of corruption. So the case concerns only the complaint of grievance. 21. The jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to enter into dispute as regards a grievance and issue positive orders has been in subject matter of various decisions of this Court. In this case, the Lok Ayukta has found no merit in the allegation of corruption. So the case concerns only the complaint of grievance. 21. The jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to enter into dispute as regards a grievance and issue positive orders has been in subject matter of various decisions of this Court. In the case of Bernard, the Division Bench dealt with the issue regarding the Lok Ayukta's power in extenso. The Division Bench in the said decision observed that the Lok Ayukta has no power to enforce its recommendation or finding and its role is confined to make a report or recommendation, nor it has any power of execution of its orders. The Division Bench referred to the Legislative Assembly debates for the period from 2 January, 1999 to 1 March 1999. At pages 377 to 447, are the debates which took place while the Lok Ayukta Bill was being moved in the Legislative Assembly. Speeches made by the members moving amendments suggest that, in their view, the Lok Ayukta did not have the power to issue a direction to the public officers and such a provision was required to be made by an amendment in the bill before it was adopted. This was categorically rejected by the House. The decision in Bernardwas thereafter followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Thankayyan v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2012 (3) KLT 163 ] and Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others [ 2017 (2) KLT 1127 ] 22. In the case of Additional Tahsildar and Another v. Urmila G. and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 1613), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the ambit of the power of the Lok Ayukta under Section 12 of the Act of 1999. In this case, the respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had filed a complaint before the office of Kerala Lok Ayukta with a grievance that the revenue record was not being corrected and for a direction be issued to the respondents therein for correction thereof and also to mutate the land in question. Upa-Lok Ayukta directed Tahsildar, Varkala to rectify the mistake in the revenue records and also receive tax from the complainant. The order was to be complied with positively within one month and such compliance was to be reported. Upa-Lok Ayukta directed Tahsildar, Varkala to rectify the mistake in the revenue records and also receive tax from the complainant. The order was to be complied with positively within one month and such compliance was to be reported. Aggrieved by the order, the authority filed a writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed. Allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “9. Insofar as the jurisdiction of Lokayukta is concerned a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector had opined that in terms of Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act, Lok Ayukta was not competent to issue positive direction. He can only submit a report with the concerned authority with its recommendations. They only have recommendatory jurisdiction. A Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta is not appellate or supervisory authority over other competent forums created under different statutes, as each of those statues provide its own remedial steps such as appeal, revision etc. The parties need to follow that procedure. The 1999 Act is not meant to override those procedures. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was referred to in the case in hand, however, the same was ignored. 10. In a subsequent judgment in District Collector and Another v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, Legislative Complex and others (AIR 2023 Ker 97), the Division Bench of the High Court reiterated the law laid down in Sudha Devi K. case (supra). It was opined that the complainants therein had not availed the statutory remedies regarding rectification of the mistakes in the revenue record. When a relevant statute provides for hierarchy of remedies, those should have been resorted to. The action of the Lokayukta was found to be without jurisdiction. 11. In our view, in the aforesaid two Judgments of the High Court, the provisions of the 1999 Act were rightly interpreted. However, in the case in hand, the direction issued by the Upa Lokayukta for correction of the revenue records was upheld, which goes totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the relevant statute for correction of the revenue records.” 23. Therefore, position of law in the above decision is clear. However, in the case in hand, the direction issued by the Upa Lokayukta for correction of the revenue records was upheld, which goes totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the relevant statute for correction of the revenue records.” 23. Therefore, position of law in the above decision is clear. In the present case, as stated earlier, as regards the allegation of corruption and demand of illegal gratification is concerned, the Lok Ayukta has rendered a finding that there is no basis in the said allegation, and therefore, the Lok Ayukta has found that the “allegation” levelled by Nazeer was not established. Thereafter, the Lok Ayukta has entered into various disputed questions of fact as regards the monetary liability of the Appellants out of a rental agreement and issued directions of refund. 24. It was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 Nazeer that the order of the Lok Ayukta is to secure ends of justice, should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It was argued that there is no debate on facts, and the record is unequivocal, admitting only one position and inference. We find no merit in the contention. Apart from lack of jurisdiction, it is clear that various disputed questions arise for adjudication, which would require adjudication akin to a trial which had to be decided in a Civil Court. 25. Nazeer had let out the property to the Financial Enterprises on rent. There was a rental agreement between the parties. Nazeer was out of the country. The Financial Enterprises had treated Nazeer as an NRI. That he was not an NRI could have been conclusively proved by Nazeer by producing a passport etc. and other such relevant documents. All that Nazeer produced was an affidavit dated 30 August 2006, that too after the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was deducted. The certificates of deduction from the year 2005 are placed on record. The finding of the learned Single Judge in that regard that there were no such certificates is, therefore, erroneous in as much as 14 TDS certificates have been issued. The amount deducted has already been transferred to the Government. Therefore, debatable questions arose regarding the status of Nazeer and the correctness of the action in deducting the TDS and depositing with the Government, after having deposited the amount deducted with the Government. The amount deducted has already been transferred to the Government. Therefore, debatable questions arose regarding the status of Nazeer and the correctness of the action in deducting the TDS and depositing with the Government, after having deposited the amount deducted with the Government. The dispute, therefore, centered around the terms of the rental agreement and the amounts payable under the rental agreement. 26. Having recorded a finding that there was no basis in the allegations of the demand of illegal gratification, this was a case which the Lok Ayukta should have left the parties to get the dispute resolved through the competent court. What was before the Lok Ayukta was a Civil dispute in which the Lok Ayukta did not have power to issue a positive binding “order”. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge has not dealt with this fundamental issue and, therefore, both, the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the order of the Lok Ayukta are required to be set aside. 27. In the circumstances, the Appeal is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 14 October 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 24486 of 2007 delivered by the learned Single Judge and the order of the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.566/2006 dated 28 June 2007 are quashed and set aside. No costs.