Full Judgment Text
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.