IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2184 of 2005 INDRADEO THAKUR s/o LATE SATYADEO THAKUR R/O MOHALLA- LAXMI SAGAR SHASTRI NAGAR, PO-LAXMI SAGAR PS.-SADAR,DISTT-DARBHANGA---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT BOARD,SAMASTIPUR 4. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT BOARD, SAMASTIPUR- RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 30.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. During the pendency of the writ application the details of the payment made to the petitioner has been brought on record by way of a counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Zila Parishad, Samastipur. Learned counsel for Zila Parishad submits that all payments stand made to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner however still has some lurking doubts about the payment which includes each and every claim. But in absence of any pointed or categorical statement as to what could have remained to be paid, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. Keeping in view of the categorical assertion of the respondents this writ application is disposed of as having become infructuous. If the petitioner still has any grievance with regard to the payment bona fide in nature he can surely approach the respondents with that claim. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)