IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15336 of 2006 Mundri Devi, wife of late Kameshwar Singh, resident of Village Tarari, Police Station Daudnagar, District Aurangabad. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Education Department, Bihar. 2. Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 3. Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 4. Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. --------- Respondents ----------- 3 7.7.2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the University, having filed his counter affidavit, would submit that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed and in this context, he would rely on the statement made in paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “9. That the Auditor Team examined, calculated the bill claims of the petitioner and found admissible amounting to Rs. 2,34,855/- against the bill claims of Rs. 3,29,946/- for the period of 1982-83 to January 2006 which has been paid to the petitioner through college for which a cheque dated 19.3.2010 was made available to college.” The absence of the counsel for the petitioner, therefore, becomes meaningful, 2 inasmuch as, the petitioner has already been paid the admissible amount of Rs.2,34,855/- rendering this writ application to become infructuous. This application is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)