WP(C) 273/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE U.B. SAHA The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner almost after 11 yea rs from the date of appearing in the examination for a direction to the responde nt University either to disclose the cause or causes of withholding her result o f Three Years Degree Course Part II (2+1) Examination which commenced on 4.5.99 against Roll 1399 No.168 or to declare her passed in the said examination. Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. MR Patha k, learned Standing Counsel, Education appearing for the respondent No.3. Considering the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, this wri t petition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage even in absence of the respondents No.1 and 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she appeared in the Three Ye ars Degree Course Part II (2+1) Examination which commenced on and from 4.5.99 a gainst Roll 1399 No.168 and after appearance she could not take any information regarding her result due to her marriage and subsequent family affairs. In the m onth of September 2009 while she went to her college and met the Principal she w as informed that she would not get her result and on advice of the Principal of the College she filed a representation to the respondent No.2 in the month of Oc tober 2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and again on 3.7.2010 she filed ano ther representation to the respondent No.2 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), bu t those representations have not yet been disposed of by the respondent No.2. He nce this writ petition. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learn ed Standing Counsel, Education and on perusal of the records, this court is of t he considered opinion that no order need be passed on merit as the petitioner he rself was not interested for her result in time, rather she approached the autho rity concerned almost after 11 years. In the modern age situation is changing almost everyday. Therefore, in t he changing circumstances the authority may have considered that the representat ions of the petitioner being submitted in a belated stage, almost after 11 years , it is not necessary on their part to reply the same. However, it would not be proper for this court to deny justice to the petitioner only on the ground of fi ling the representations after elapse of 11 years. This court is of the considered opinion that the executive authority or any statutory authority whenever receives any representation wherein some grieva nces are made against that authority, it is the duty of that authority to answer the same. Therefore, it would meet justice if this writ petition is disposed of wi th a simple direction to the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the resu lt of the representation to the petitioner. Order accordingly. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this order along with a copy of her representation dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) to t he respondent No.2 within seven days from today. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is dispos ed of.