http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3243 of 2008

PETITIONER: Ashok Kumar

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2008

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

NON-REPORTABLE

                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3243 OF 2008            (Arising out of SLP)No.10445 of 2007)

       1.      Leave granted. p2.     This appeal is directed against an order dated  24th of January, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of  the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA  NO.1348 of 2005 by which the writ petition filed  by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed not  on merits but on the ground of delay and latches.  3.      On grant of leave, we have heard the learned  counsel for the parties. Having heard the learned  counsel for the parties and after examining the  orders of the High Court, viz., the order of the  Division Bench impugned in this appeal and the  order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the  view that the Division Bench as well as the  learned single Judge of the High Court were not  justified in rejecting the writ petition as well  as the writ appeal on the ground of delay and  latches as the writ petitioner i.e. the appellant  had moved the writ petition before the High Court  against the decision of the State Government only  in 1996, i.e. after 4 years from the date of  passing of such order. The Division Bench as well  as the learned Single Judge, in our view, had  committed an error in holding that the pendency of  the review/representation of the writ  petitioner/appellant could not be taken to be a  ground for condoning the delay after 4 years of  the decision of the State Government. In our view,  the High Court had fallen into error in not  holding that the appellant had sufficiently  explained why the writ petition could not be moved  or why it was moved after 4 years of the decision  of the State Government. Since the appellant had  filed a representation/review of the decision of  the State Government, it was expected by him that  an order should be passed on the said  representation/review. Therefore, in our view, the  delay in moving the writ application against the  decision of the State Government was sufficiently

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

explained by the appellant and, therefore, the  writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on  the ground of delay and latches. Accordingly, we  set aside the impugned orders of the Division  Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge.  The  writ petition is, accordingly, restored to its  file. The High Court is requested to decide the  writ petition on merits in accordance with law  after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties  and after permitting the parties to exchange their  affidavits, if not already exchanged in the  meantime. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to  the extent indicated above. There will be no order  as to costs.