JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Dr. S.K. Chaturvedi, who is appearing in person and Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the ECL. 2. The prayer in this writ application is for a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith make payment of legal dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 58,000/- for attending two cases before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 3. The petitioner has stated in the writ application that he is a legal practitioner and his place of practice is mainly confined to the Jharkhand High Court. It has been stated that Eastern Coalfields Ltd. had engaged him vide letter dated 01.06.2010 to conduct R.P. Case No. 1 of 2010 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner has stated that the said case was with respect to Sripur Area and Mugma Area of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and he had diligently appeared on the various dates fixed by the tribunal and had accordingly claimed bills for such appearance. It has further been stated that the officials of M/s. ECL had appointed another counsel namely Sri Anup Kumar Jha in the month of April 2011 to pursue R.P. Case No. 1 of 2010 without obtaining ‘no objection’ from the petitioner and therefore, since the petitioner had also subsequently appeared along with Sri Anup Kumar Jha in R.P. Case No. 1 of 2010, the petitioner deserves to be paid the bills which he had raised subsequent to the period of appointment of Sri A.K. Jha as a counsel to pursue R.P. Case No. 1 of 2010. The petitioner therefore submits that in total, the petitioner has submitted bills of Rs. 58,000/- and save and except an amount of Rs. 8,000/-, nothing has been paid to him by the ECL. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-ECL stating that so far as the Sripur Area is concerned, the entire bills has already been paid to him and so far as the Mugma Area is concerned, the petitioner has appeared for 6 dates and a total amount of Rs. 9,000/- has also been paid to the petitioner. 5. During the present proceeding on 14.03.2019, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had handed over two drafts drawn in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 22,300/- and Rs. 9,009/- which were handed over to the petitioner on the said date itself. 9,000/- has also been paid to the petitioner. 5. During the present proceeding on 14.03.2019, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had handed over two drafts drawn in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 22,300/- and Rs. 9,009/- which were handed over to the petitioner on the said date itself. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the court to the communication made by the petitioner dated 31.01.2012 with respect to Sripur Area in which it has been stated that the total bills which had accrued to the petitioner was Rs. 33,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 8,000/- has already been received by him. Therefore, the dues so far as Sripur Area is concerned was of Rs. 22,300/- as has been indicated above. On 14.03.2019 a draft bearing no. 045926 amounting to Rs. 22,300/- had already been handed over to the petitioner. Since the controversy with respect to payment of bills with respect to Sripur Area has been laid to rest, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the ECL has drawn the attention of the court to a chart which has been filed with the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 2 showing that prior to appointment of Sr. A.K. Jha as a counsel to appear in R. P. Case No. 1 of 2010, the petitioner had appeared on 6 dates and considering the fact that he was allowed payment at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per appearance, an amount of Rs. 9,009/- has already been paid to the petitioner which is reflected from the order dated 14.03.2019. 6. The petitioner at this stage has submitted that he had appeared along with Sri A.K. Jha in R.P. Case No. 1 of 2010 post 24.02.2011. However, the said fact has been denied by the respondents, since a counsel was already appearing in R.P. Case No. 1 of 2010 namely, Sri A.K. Jha. The claim of the petitioner that he should be paid bills for the period post 24.02.2011 therefore, appears to be disputed by the respondents. As such, the bills regarding Mugma Area in which the petitioner had appeared for 6 dates had already been cleared and paid to the petitioner as indicated above. 7. In the circumstances denoted above, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs. As such, the bills regarding Mugma Area in which the petitioner had appeared for 6 dates had already been cleared and paid to the petitioner as indicated above. 7. In the circumstances denoted above, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for payment of Rs. 58,000/- towards the fees for appearing in R.P. Case No. 1 of 2010 appears to be an exaggerated amount as the entire entitled amount as would be evident from the records has been paid to the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid therefore, this writ application accordingly stands disposed of.