Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4199 of 2010 ====================================================== Raj Kumar S/O Jagdev Prasad, R/O Vill.- Balmichak, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Patna

2. The Executive Engineer, New Capital, Road Division Fire Brigade Campus, Lodipur, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer Traffic, South Bihar Circle, Road Construction Department, Patna, Bihar

4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Deptt., Road Division, Patna, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K.Verma, AAG-5 Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2015 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition. However, learned AAG-5 appearing on behalf of the respondents, by referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4, submits that the entire outstanding admitted dues of the petitioner has already been paid to him. In support of the aforesaid submissions he has specifically referred to the statements made in paragraph-8 and 9 as also the documents as contained in Annexure-A and B to the aforesaid counter-affidavit. Though, a copy of the aforesaid counter-affidavit was served upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner way back in the year 2011, yet no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner disputing the averments made in the aforesaid counter-affidavit.

In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition has become infructuous as admitted

Patna High Court CWJC No.4199 of 2010 (3) dt.20-02-2015 2/2 dues of the petitioner has already been paid to him. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed, as it has become infructuous.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U