IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1409 of 2005 RAM NARAIN SINGH S/O LATE BUDHI RAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND POST- RATWAR, P.S.- BHABHUA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPT.LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., BUDH MARG, PATNA-1 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., BUDH MARG, PATNA-1 ----------- 3. 18.08.2011 The present L.P.A. has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9332 of 2004 whereby, inter alia, the learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground of laches and inordinate delay in approaching the Court. The appellant contends that in view of the Bank’s Circular dated 15.01.1986, he was entitled to be considered for certain benefits by reason of the collections effected by him which, however, had not been granted to him. It is undisputed that the said policy had come into force in January, 1986. However, even though the appellant did approach the bank, the last of his representations was made as far back as on 16.11.1992 and thereafter no action was taken on his part. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the benefit to which he is entitled in terms of the Circular of 1986, ought not to be denied merely on the ground of delay in seeking redressal of his grievance. He has, however, not been able to point out a single mitigating factor which could be treated as reasonable cause for the delay in approaching the Court. He points out that one Ramanuj Singh, who is stated to be a similarly situated person, was duly granted the benefit of the 1986 Circular and as such denial of the same to him is violative of Article 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 has also been heard in the matter and he supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge. After hearing the parties and on careful consideration of the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned order need not be interfered with, considering that there has been a long and inordinate delay without any reason whatsoever on the part of the appellant in seeking appropriate remedies. It is well settled that delay and laches without proper explanation for the same would constitute a bar for the grant of relief in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court referred in the case of Mohan Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 188, in support of the proposition that the rule against court’s interference at a belated stage is not a rule of law but the rule of practice and that each case must depend on its own facts. In the said decision, an earlier judgment in the case of M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited Vs. District Board, Bhojpur and others reported in (1992) 2 S.C.C. page 598: 1992 (2) PLJR (SC) 5 was also considered, wherein it was observed as follows:- The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is not to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches.” From the self same judgment being relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that grant of relief may be considered provided that the lapse of time is not attributable to any latches and negligence. In this case, the appellant has been unable to offer any explanation whatsoever much less a reasonable one to explain the delay and latches in approaching the Writ Court and as such the judgment relied upon is little assistance to the appellant. In the above view of the matter, therefore, the L.P.A. is dismissed. Fahad/Ashwini ( T.Meena Kumari, J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J. )