IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3600 of 2011 NRIPENDRA KUMAR SON OF SRI MANI SHARMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- EAST LOHANIPUR, SARASWATI LANE, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPATMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NEW CAPITAL DIVISION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA. …… RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Shakhti Suman Kumar, Rajesh Ranjan & Sushil Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : Smt. Kumari Amrita, G.P. X. ------------ 02/ 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure-4) by which the Executive Engineer, New Capital Division, Road Construction Department, Patna (Respondent no.4) decided that the entire amount due to the petitioner has been paid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is wrong and huge amount is still due to be paid to the petitioner. 4. It transpires from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record that earlier petitioner of this writ petition had filed CWJC No.7960 of 2009 which was disposed of by a bench of this court on 14.07.2009 giving liberty - 2 - to the petitioner to file a representation before the said authority whereafter the said authority was directed to verify and forward the admitted dues to the higher authorities for consideration and payment within three months from the date of filing of the representation and the respondents were directed to pay the admitted dues to the petitioner within a reasonable period. 5. In compliance of the said order, petitioner filed an application before the said authority and the said authority vide order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure-4) considered the bills already paid to the petitioner and held that the entire admitted dues have been paid to the petitioner and no amount remains to be paid to him. 6. It further transpires that petitioner filed MJC No.1617 of 2010 for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the respondents for violating the aforesaid order of this court. However, the said MJC case was disposed of on 08.09.2010 as according to the respondents, all the admitted dues had been paid to the petitioner and it was observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the authority he may take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 7. In view of the aforesaid order of a bench of this court dated 08.09.2010 the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. However, from the facts and circumstances as well as the respective claims of the parties it is quite apparent that now the dispute is with respect to the amount of dues which is not admitted - 3 - by the respondents. In the said circumstances, it transpires that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy for the said relief. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)