MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a mandamus directing the respondents/commissioner of Police to register an FIR into the complaint of the petitioners and to get the matter investigated. The petitioners has also prayed for a direction to respondents to prosecute the guilty officials and contractors and also to initiate departmental proceedings against certain officers. ( 2 ) IT appears that this writ petition had been disposed of by a judgment of a division Bench of this Court dated 24. 5. 2004 which reads as follows:"24. 5. 2004 present : Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner mr. Kailash Gambhir for the respondent/nct of Delhi mr. Cheta Dutta for MCD wp (C) No. 7288-89/2004 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to give a copy of the report to the Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. A police officer of the rank of ACP will investigate the matter and shall submit a report to the Court of competent jurisdiction in this behalf within six months. Liberty to move the Court in case of difficulty. The petition stands disposed of. Chief Justice badar Durrez Ahmed, J. May 24, 2004" ( 3 ) IT appears that the direction of this Court in the judgment dated 24. 5. 2004 to complete the investigation and submit a report to the Court of Competent jurisdiction was interpreted to mean that the report should be submitted to this court. Hence, under this impression the learned Counsel for the respondent filed an application before this Court praying for extension of time for submitting a report. Thereafter several status reports were submitted to this Court. It appears that thereafter an order was passed by a different Division Bench of this Court dated 2. 2. 2005 directing the MCD to file an affidavit within four weeks explaining as to why they have not submitted the documents to the Investigating Officer within a reasonable period from the date of demand. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Prashant Bhushan submitted that no criminal or departmental action has been initiated regarding 27 missing electrical pumps, against the guilty officials who had indulged in corruption. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sh. Prashant Bhushan submitted that no criminal or departmental action has been initiated regarding 27 missing electrical pumps, against the guilty officials who had indulged in corruption. ( 5 ) IN our opinion, if there is a complaint of any person that his FIR is not being registered, or having been registered appropriate investigation is not being done by the police, the remedy of that person is to approach the Magistrate concerned under section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. If the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied about the averments made in the application he can direct the FIR to be registered and/or proper investigation to be done and he can also monitor the investigation vide H. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883 ; Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr. , I (2006) SLT 120=jt 2006 (1) SC 10, etc. ( 6 ) HENCE, in our opinion, a writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained merely because a person has a grievance that his FIR is not being registered, or that having been registered, a proper investigation is not being done by the police in that connection. In such cases the said person has an alternative remedy to approach the magistrate concerned under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. and this Court should not ordinarily entertain such writ petitions otherwise it will be flooded with such writ petitions and there will be no other work done by this Court except hearing such writ petitions. It is well settled that if there is an alternative remedy this Court under article 226 should not ordinarily interfere. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, the order dated 24. 5. 2004 should be interpreted to mean that the Investigating Officer should have submitted his report to the concerned metropolitan Magistrate, which could be either a final report or a charge-sheet. This Court is not the proper place where the police are supposed to submit their reports as a consequence to their investigation. 5. 2004 should be interpreted to mean that the Investigating Officer should have submitted his report to the concerned metropolitan Magistrate, which could be either a final report or a charge-sheet. This Court is not the proper place where the police are supposed to submit their reports as a consequence to their investigation. ( 8 ) HENCE, we dispose of this matter with liberty to the petitioner to place all the documents which he has placed before us before the concerned Metropolitan magistrate with suitable application under Section 156 (3), and if he does so, the magistrate, if he is of the opinion that a proper investigation was not done, will ensure that a proper investigation is done into the allegations of the petitioner, and the Magistrate may also to monitor the investigation so as to ensure a proper investigation as the allegations appear to be serious in nature. ( 9 ) IF thought necessary by the Metropolitan Magistrate he can also direct change of the investigating officer/investigating agency as in our opinion Section 156 (3) is wide enough to include such a power. ( 10 ) AS regards the petitioner s prayer for departmental action against certain officials of the MCD the petitioner may approach the Commissioner, MCD in this connection, and the Commissioner will get the matter investigated by the Investigation wing of the MCD and thereafter do the needful. ( 11 ) MR. Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that 27 electrical motors which were paid for by the MCD are admittedly found to be missing by the police. The MCD (Vigilance Department) will look into this complaint also and the Commissioner, MCD will take suitable action in the matter. The matter is disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of. .