Exts.P3 and P4 orders issued by respondents 3 and 4, to the extent it confirmed the demand for payment of surcharge is under challenge in this writ petition. It is noticed that the case was posted for settlement before the Lok Adalath on 2.1.2014. Proceedings of the Lok Adalath indicates that the petitioner and counsel had not appeared on that day. But it is noticed that the Assistant Executive Engineer who represented respondents 3 and 4 had reported that the entire dues were already cleared payment and there is no subsisting claim from the petitioner, at present. But in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, the Lok Adalath had directed to send back the case to the court for disposal. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also concedes that the statement made before the Lok Adalath is true and correct. Since it is recorded that no further claim subsists against the petitioner, there is no grievance surviving.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/