IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11908 of 2008 M/S MAGADH TUBE-WELL ENGINEERING WORKS, GAYA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF SHRI DEO SHARAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF CUTCHERRY ROAD, POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES, TOWN AND DISTRICT GAYA . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 4. GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, GAYA. 5. COMMISSIONER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 7. THE GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AT P.O. AND DISTRICT GAYA. 8. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GAYA MUNCIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA 9. R.R. PRASAD SINGH THE THEN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT GAYA. 10. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH THE THEN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DISTRICT GAYA. 11. THE GAYA WATER BOARD, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA. 12. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GAYA SADAR, GAYA. ----------- 3/ 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-State and the Gaya Municipal Corporation. This is nth time when the petitioner has approached this Court by agitating the same claim for payment of so-called work executed by him for providing drinking water within the Gaya Municipal area. Earlier attempt made by the petitioner only begot him a direction - 2 - that admitted dues of the petitioner must be paid to him. So far as the disputed dues is concerned, no direction was issued by the Court. The order in question is Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The petitioner moved the Court in a contempt application for breach of the said direction which is M.J.C. No. 2797 of 2005. Matter was heard in great detail and from the tenor of the order, this Court can take the liberty of stating the matter was heard afresh. The contempt matter was dropped with observation that if any arbitration clause existed in the agreement executed between the parties, petitioner can take recourse to arbitration. This order is Annexure-25 to the writ application. Petitioner persisted and filed a Civil Review No. 189 of 2007 for review of the order passed in M.J.C. No. 2797 of 2005 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2008. Now the challenge is to the order contained in Annexure-1 by virtue of which the liability has been denied by the respondent- Corporation with regard to some other claim being made by the petitioner. This Court had already occasion to observe that this matter cannot be decided and adjudicated in the writ application and there is no special reason now to overlook those observations made by this Court earlier in its order mentioned above. The petitioner may seek his remedy in another forum other than the writ application. - 3 - The writ application is dismissed. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/