2025:JHHC:12661 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 982 of 2023 Alimuddin No. 1, son of Sahdul Ansari, resident of village Darji Mohalla, Palamu, P.O Palamu, P.S. Penk, Narayanpur, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. …... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project building, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Central Bureau of Investigation through the Superintendent of CBI, Ranchi, GPO, Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 4. The Chief Manager (Personnel) / APIO, CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi. 5. CCL through its General Manager, Kathara Washery Project, Kathara Area, Gomia, Bokaro. 6. The Project Officer, Kathara Washery Project, Kathara Area, Gomia, Bokaro. 7. Karimuddin @ Kalam, son of Layakat Ansari, resident of village- Saram, East Nawa Bandha, P.O Saram, P.S. Gomia, Bokaro. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Faiz-UR-Rahman, Advocate. For respondent No. 7 M/s Atanu Banerjee & Suman Kr. Ghosh, Advocates. For the CCL Mr. Sharon Toppo, AC to Mr. Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate. For the CBI: Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. P.P. Mr. Ayush, AC to Spl. P.P ------- 09/28.04.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- (a) For an enquiry and his appointment in Kathara Washery, Bokaro, as contained in the award passed in Reference Case No. 135 of 1992 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad in which the petitioner's name figured at Sl. No. 63, whereby and whereunder in place of the petitioner the private respondent No. 7 has been given appointment/job in Kathara Washery by playing fraud/in connivance with the respondent No. 4 to 6 and as such is unsustainable in the eye of law. (b) For a direction upon the respondent CBI or any other independent agency to make a thorough inquiry/investigation relating to fake appointment of the private respondent in place of the petitioner and further for taking appropriate legal action against the culprits, as would be evident from the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the grievance of the petitioner that a fraud has been committed by M/s Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and imposter has been appointed. He submits that the said appointment had taken place in the year 1995. It is further case of the petitioner that inspite of repeated request no enquiry is being made by M/s CCL. 4. After hearing the parties and after going through the record of the writ petition specially the prayer of the petitioner, while exercising jurisdiction under criminal writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus in nature, as prayed for by the petitioner. I do not find that the petitioner has filed any criminal complaint/FIR before any authority. Without filing of any complaint or FIR, the petitioner has rushed to this Court for the relief(s), aforementioned. Thus, this writ petition at this stage is not maintainable. 5. Since the petitioner has got alternative remedy, available to him, he should avail the same. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)