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 number 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.
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 number on merits but on the ground of delay and latches.
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.
O R D E R NON REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.3243 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP No.10445 of 2007 Leave granted.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and after examining the orders of the High Court, viz.,
On grant of leave, we have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
The Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge, in our view, had companymitted an error in holding that the pendency of the review representation of the writ petitioner appellant companyld number be taken to be a ground for companydoning the delay after 4 years of the decision of the State Government.
In our view, the High Court had fallen into error in number holding that the appellant had sufficiently explained why the writ petition companyld number be moved or why it was moved after 4 years of the decision of the State Government.
