IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5830 of 2011 NIRAJ KUMAR, S/O LATE SURAJ NARAYAN SHRIWASTAVA, R/O VILLAGE SOUTH OF BUDDHA DENTAL COLLEGE, MAHATMA GANDHI NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA-26. .................PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PHULWARISARIF, PATNA. 4. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER, PHULWARISARIF BLOCK, PATNA. 5. THE MUKHIYA,GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KORIYAWAN, PHULWARISARIF, PATNA. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KORIYAWAN, PHULWARISARIF, PATNA. ………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr.Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to AAG-III For respondent nos.5 & 6 : M/s Prabhu Narayan Sharma and Bimal Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 02/ 11.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for respondent nos.5 & 6. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents specially Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Koriyawan (respondent no.5) and Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Koriyawan (respondent no.6) to make payment of contractual dues worth Rs.3,79,436.00 in lieu of the contract work of installing vapour light at different villages within Koriyawan Panchayat under 12th Finance Scheme which they had not paid despite requests and representations. Learned counsel for the petitioner also challenges order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure-7) by which - 2 - the Panchayat Secretary (respondent no.6) rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the entire amount to which the petitioner was entitled has been paid to him and the direction of the High Court was being complied. 3. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had earlier approached this court vide C.W.J.C. No.10622 of 2010 which was disposed of on 09.07.2010 with a direction to respondent nos.5 and 6 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2009 within a period of four weeks from that order and any amount found due and payable to the petitioner shall also be paid to him within a further period of two months thereafter. In view of the aforesaid order passed by a Bench of this court, the authorities have passed order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure-7) in which it has been specifically stated that the dues amount have already been paid to the petitioner through the agent on the basis of bills which were also signed by the petitioner and no amount remains due thereafter. 4. Thus it is quite apparent that in view of order of this court passed in earlier writ petition an order has been passed by the authorities concerned which shows that no dues admitted by the respondents remains to be paid to the petitioner, hence any amount which the petitioner claims to be payable is disputed by the respondents. 5. In the said circumstances, this court has no - 3 - occasion to consider the disputed contractual dues for which other forums are available to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)