← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/11572/2023dismissed

Mungalal Sardar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-13Mr. Justice A. Abhishek Reddy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11572 of 2023 ====================================================== Mungalal Sardar S/o Late Babulal Sardar R/O Ward No. 09, Rampur Lahi, Panchayat - Bathan Parsa, P.S. - Singheshwar and Distt. - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary, The Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar.

2.

The District Magistrate, Madhepura.

3.

The SDO, Madhepura.

4.

The BDO, Shankarpur, Madhepura.

5.

The Block Supply Officer, Shankarpur, Madhepura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Arvind Ujjwal ( Sc 4 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER 13-10-2023 The present writ petition is filed challenging the order/Letter/Memo No. 254 dated 01.07.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhepura.

Admittedly, in the present case, the order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhepura cancelling the license way back through the order dated 01.07.2013. Even though the petitioner had the remedy of filing an appeal and revision, the petitioner has not bothered to file the same. The present writ petition is filed before this Court after a lapse of ten years. There is absolutely no reason shown for filing the present writ petition after a lapse of ten years. Even though under

Patna High Court CWJC No.11572 of 2023(2) dt.13-10-2023 2/2 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no period of limitation fixed, but this Court as well as for the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases held that any person aggrieved by the passing of any orders has to approach the courts within a reasonable time.

In this particular case, the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of ten years. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that the lapse of ten years is a reasonable time.

Having regard to the same, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches. This order does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the respondent authorities for applying afresh.

With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(A. Abhishek Reddy , J) Gauravkr/- U