presented to the Lok Ayukta under section has to be, as far as practicable, in accordance with the form set out in the Schedule. It is further to be accompanied by an affidavit and further that a defective complaint, if not cured, has to be rejected. Based on the provisions of the Act and Rules as produced above, this Court is in a position to return a firm finding that the Lok Ayukta can enter upon an investigation only on a written complaint and further that such a complaint, as far as practicable,has to be as provided under the Schedule, which not only contains a declaration to the effect as mentioned above, but has also to be supported by an affidavit. A complaint which may not comply with the requirements of the Act and Rules cannot be entertained and thus has to be rejected, even though by virtue of the proviso appended to S.9 an opportunity to cure the defects has to be given to the complainant. If that be so, it has to be held further that the Lok Ayukta would have no power to conduct any investigation with respect to any matter without a complaint as envisaged under the rules. The Lok Ayukta would, thus, have no suo motu powers to conduct any investigation. It has no jurisdiction to investigate grievance sought to be ventilated or projected in anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or a letter of complaint as well. We may mention that during the course of arguments the contention raised by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that the provisions contained in the Act and Rules would not confer any suo motu power on the Lok Ayukta to proceed to investigate was not much disputed, even though what was sought to be projected by the learned counsel representing the Lok Ayukta was that the
