JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the direction has been sought for upon the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, Serakella-Kharsawan to take legal action against the respondent No.4 for not complying the order passed by the Executive Magistrate in Misc. Case No.316 of 1983. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in a miscellaneous case being Misc. Case No.316 of 1983, an order has been passed by the Executive Magistrate, Seraikella on 31.12.1993 declaring the possession of Sheikh Karim s/o Late Barkat Ali who claims to be the owner of the land bearing Plot No.707, Khata No.9 having an area of 41.5 decimal of land situated at Mouza Gourangkocha against which the petitioner has preferred criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.14 of 1994 in which the revisional court has called for the records of the Misc. Case No.316 of 1983 but since 1994 till disposal of the aforesaid criminal revision, the record was not received in the revisional court in spite of several correspondences made but it is due to connivance of Sheikh Karim, the opposite party of Criminal Revision No.14 of 1994 and Ranjan Kumar Dubey (respondent No.4), the then Bench Clerk of the Executive Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Office, Seraikella and ultimately the revision has been dismissed on 23.06.2016. 3. The petitioner has made out a case that the Bench Clerk-respondent No.4 has miss-utilized his official position in holding the record to be received in the office of the revisional court to be sent from the original authority i.e., the Executive Magistrate, Seraikella and therefore, appropriate legal action is required to be taken against him, hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Shahi, learned AC to AAG has submitted that the petitioner before resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to make a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of the District for taking appropriate action against the respondent No.4 but in stead of doing so, instant writ petition has been filed. 5. 5. He further submits that although the representation addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan dated 01.03.2017 has been annexed as Annexure-6 but there is no evidence as to whether the said representation was received in the office of Deputy Commissioner or not, and therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained on the ground of availability of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the factual dispute whereby and whereunder the question of miss-utilizing the official position of the respondent No.4 has been raised by the petitioner. 7. It is the admitted position as would be evident from the factual aspect as available on record that the petitioner although has annexed a representation dated 01.03.2017 made before the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella but it is not apparent therefrom as to whether it has been received since there is no acknowledgment of receiving over there. 8. It can be the case of the petitioner that the concerned office has not received the representation, even accepting that, in that situation, the grievance/complaint to be sent through the registered post but that is not the case herein. 9. In view thereof and showing agreement with the submission agitated by the learned counsel for the State and considering the fact that the petitioner has not ventilated his grievance before the concerned competent authority, therefore, the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appropriate to be invoked in view of the fact that the petitioner before approaching to this Court has not exhausted the remedy available and without making any remand against the grievance. 10. In view thereof, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage, however, it is open to the petitioner to bring this fact into the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella to look into the matter and take decision in accordance with law. 11. It goes without saying that the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella while taking decision will provide an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. 12. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of.