IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.977 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12275 of 2025 ====================================================== Paras Nath Singh S/o Late Brij Nandan Singh, resident of Village-Darbhanga, P.S.-Madanpur, District-Aurangabad. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Rular Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Rular Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Rular Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 5. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad. 7. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Daudnagar, Aurangabad. 8. The District Education Officer, Aurangabad. 9. The Block Development Officer, Block-Deo, Aurangabad. 10. The Block Development Officer, Block-Aurangabad, Aurangabad. 11. The Block Education Extension Officer, Daudnagar, Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Government Advocate (07) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 17-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by learned Single Patna High Court L.P.A No.977 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 2/8 Judge in CWJC No. 12275 of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) came to be dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that the writ-petitioner (appellant herein) was appointed as Village Labour Worker (V.L.W.) on 20.09.1990 and subsequently served as V.L.W.-cum-Panchayat Secretary at different places in the district of Aurangabad. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in connection with alleged irregularities in the appointment of Shiksha Mitras in Gram Panchayat Pohima, Block Aurangabad. A charge memo containing nine charges was issued against him. 4. During the departmental proceeding, the appellant submitted his reply to the charges. The Block Development Officer, Aurangabad, thereafter submitted his proposal, and the Conducting Officer-cum-Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Daudnagar, submitted an enquiry report. The enquiry report recorded that no concrete evidence was available in support of the allegations levelled against the appellant and that the charges were not clearly proved. 5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid enquiry proceedings, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad passed an Patna High Court L.P.A No.977 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 3/8 order dated 27.08.2012 imposing the punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect and also denying the appellant the benefits for the period of suspension beyond the subsistence allowance. 6. The appellant preferred Service Appeal No. 318 of 2012 before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. By order dated 30.08.2014, the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate, Aurangabad for fresh consideration and for passing a reasoned and speaking order upon consideration of the appellant’s second show-cause. 7. Pursuant to the order of remand, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad passed order dated 07.01.2015 maintaining the earlier punishment. The appellant thereafter approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 12275 of 2025, challenging the departmental action and the consequential order. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge and was disposed of by order dated 01.09.2025, the operative portion of the said order reads as follows: “3. The petitioner had approached this Court after ten years of the imposition of the punishment. 4. In view of the delay in filing the present writ application, this application is dismissed Patna High Court L.P.A No.977 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 4/8 on the ground of delay and laches only.” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had specifically explained the circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition and, therefore, the same could not have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the matter on account of the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has failed to furnish any sufficient or satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching this Court. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference in the present appeal. 10. The limited issue which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality, infirmity or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 11. The learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, noticing that Patna High Court L.P.A No.977 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 5/8 the petitioner had approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time from the imposition of the punishment. The appellant, before us, has sought to justify the delay by submitting that the circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition had been specifically explained. 12. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable in nature. A person invoking such jurisdiction is required to approach the Court with reasonable promptitude, and an inordinate delay in questioning an order may disentitle the litigant from seeking discretionary relief. The question of delay and laches has to be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 13. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that delay and laches are relevant considerations for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that a stale claim ordinarily ought not to be entertained. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “16.Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ Patna High Court L.P.A No.977 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 6/8 court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 14. Similarly, in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri & Ors., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the writ Court is required to examine the conduct of the litigant and the delay in approaching the Court, and that a stale claim cannot ordinarily be entertained merely because the relief sought is otherwise available in law. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “19.We have referred to the aforesaid authorities as we are of the convinced Patna High Court L.P.A No.977 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 7/8 opinion that in the present case, there was a manifest error by the High Court, for it had really not taken note of the stand and stance that was eloquently put by the State as regards the delay and laches. The averments in the writ petition were absolutely silent and nothing had been spelt out why the delay had occurred. The Single Judge, as stated earlier had chosen not to address the said issue. The Division Bench in the appeal addressed the submission, totally being oblivious of the ground pertaining to delay and laches clearly stated in the memorandum of appeal, and modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge as if that was the sole submission. It needs no special emphasis to state that in the obtaining factual matrix, the application for review did not require delving deep into the factual matrix to find out the error. It was not an exercise of an appellate jurisdiction as is understood in law. It can be stated with certitude that it was a palpable error, for the principal stand of the State was not addressed to and definitely it had immense significance and hence, the same deserved to be addressed to. Therefore, we are compelled to think that the order required review for the purpose of consideration of the impact of delay and laches in preferring the writ petition. Be that as it may, we shall proceed to deal with the repercussions of delay and laches, as we are of the considered opinion that the same deserves to be addressed to in the present case.” 15. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any circumstance of such nature as would justify the learned Single Judge in overlooking the substantial delay in Patna High Court L.P.A No.977 of 2025(4) dt.17-08-2026 8/8 approaching this Court. The explanation sought to be relied upon by the appellant does not, in our considered view, furnish sufficient justification for condoning such delay and entertaining the writ petition on merits. 16. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The order dated 01.09.2025 does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the issue framed is answered against the appellant. 18. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands dismissed. 19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. vanisha/anushka (Sudhir Singh, ACJ) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U