[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Birendra Prasad Mehra vs The State Of Bihar on 2 February, 2026
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.643 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15678 of 2023
======================================================
Birendra Prasad Mehra, aged about 67 years, male, Son of Nawal Kishor
Mehra, Resident of House No. 83, Ward No. 09, Village- Bherwa, Nawadih,
Block- Madhupur, P.O.- Madhupur, P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar, Jhark-
hand.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Depart-
ment, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Zone, Bhagalpur.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Bhagalpur.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Munger.
6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Banka.
7. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Jamui.
8. Sri Brij Bhushan Prasad Sinha, the then Executive Engineer, PHED Divi-
sion, Banka.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed
against judgment dated 02.04.2024, passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.15678 of 2023,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed
Patna High Court L.P.A No.643 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
2/7
solely on the ground of delay and laches.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant
was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Health
Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as"PHED")
and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the
appellant vide memo dated 21.03.2012, to which he submitted
his explanation. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued on
13.09.2012
. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer
submitted his report on 12.03.2014, holding the charges framed
against the appellant proved. A second show-cause notice was
issued on 07.04.2014, followed by the order of punishment
dated 19.07.2016. The appellant also filed a representation
regarding payment of outstanding salary, which was disposed of
on 20.09.2016.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition solely on
the ground of delay, without examining the merits of the case,
thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant. It is further
submitted that the appellant had already preferred a statutory
appeal against the order of punishment and had not received any
information regarding its disposal. According to the appellant,
the delay stood sufficiently explained and ought not to have
Patna High Court L.P.A No.643 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
been treated as fatal to the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent-State submits that the appellant approached the writ
Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay, and failed to
furnish any satisfactory explanation for invoking the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction at such a belated stage. It is thus
submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised
judicial discretion in dismissing the writ petition.
6. The limited issue for consideration before this
Court is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches,
and whether such dismissal calls for any interference in intra-
court appellate jurisdiction.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and
upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds
that the learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, has categorically held that the writ
petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches alone. The learned Single Judge has recorded a clear
finding that the petitioner approached this Court after an
unexplained delay of more than seven years, without assigning
any reason whatsoever. The relevant observation of the learned
Single Judge reads as under:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.643 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
"7. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and for the reasons mentioned
hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, this
Court finds that the present writ petition is fit to
be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches
alone inasmuch as the petitioner has
approached this Court belatedly after an
unexplained delay of more than 7 years,
especially in view of the principles of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of
judgments, as referred to by the Ld. counsel for
the Respondent-State and recorded herein above
in the preceding paragraphs, as also
considering the maxim-"equity aids the vigilant
and not those who slumber on their rights".
Thus, this Court is of the view that since the
petitioner has not filed the writ petition within a
reasonable period of time, this Court is not
under any legal obligation to entertain the writ
petition, especially considering the fact that the
petitioner has not offered any reason
whatsoever, for the enormous delay which has
taken place in approaching this Court, hence,
the present writ petition is dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches."
8. The learned Single Judge has further observed
that, in view of the settled principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, the writ court is
not under any legal obligation to entertain a writ petition filed
beyond a reasonable period, particularly when no explanation
Patna High Court L.P.A No.643 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
for the delay has been furnished. The discretion exercised by the
learned Single Judge in declining to entertain a stale claim is
thus in accordance with the well-established principles
governing jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
9. This Court is in complete agreement with the
aforesaid reasoning. It is well settled that delay and laches
makes a litigant disentitled to discretionary relief, and the mere
pendency or filing of a departmental appeal cannot justify
approaching the writ court after lapse of several years.
10. The law relating to delay and laches is well
settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that
writ jurisdiction being discretionary, stale and belated claims
ought not to be entertained, particularly when no satisfactory
explanation for delay is furnished. In State of M.P. v. Bhailal
Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed as follows:
21. ...It appears to us however that the maximum
period fixed by the legislature as the time within
which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must
be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a
reasonable standard by which delay in seeking
remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The
court may consider the delay unreasonable even
if it is less than the period of limitation
prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but
Patna High Court L.P.A No.643 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
where the delay is more than this period, it will
almost always be proper for the court to hold
that it is unreasonable..."
11. Further, in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as follows:
2... In effect he wants to unscramble a
scrambled egg... It is not that there is any period
of limitation for the Courts to exercise their
powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can
never be a case where the Courts cannot
interfere in a matter after the passage of a
certain length of time. But it would be a sound
and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to
refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers
under Article 226 in the case of persons who do
not approach it expeditiously for relief and who
stand by and allow things to happen and then
approach the Court to put forward stale claims
and try to unsettle settled matters. The
petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been
dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions
is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work
of the Court and impedes the work of the Court
in considering legitimate grievances as also its
normal work. We consider that the High Court
was right in dismissing the appellant's petition
as well as the appeal."
12. The principle that equity aids the vigilant and
not those who slumber on their rights has been reiterated in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.643 of 2024 dt.02-02-2026
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v.
T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, which has
rightly been taken into consideration by the learned Single
Judge.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find
that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ
petition on the ground of delay and laches. This Court,
therefore, is of the view that there is no perversity, illegality, or
jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment warranting
interference by this Court in its intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
14. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal
stands dismissed and the judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed.
15. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Ibrar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
