IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.299 of 2010 Ram Kripal Yadav , s/o Late Dhanpat Yadav, R/v-Harheha, P.S. Baheri, District-Darbhanga at present posted at Tharthari Police Station at Nalanda. ……Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G., Darbhanga, P.S.- Laheriya Sarai, District- Darbhanga. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. 5. The Inspector General of Police, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Respondents. ----------- 02. 15.02.2010 I.A.No.1455 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 11 days in preferring the appeal. We have heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the State. Mr. Bharti has no objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed. L.P.A.No.299 of 2010 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to - 2 - take up the appeal. On consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard at the motion stage. In this appeal the justifiability of the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.15667 of 2009 is called in question on the foundation that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued the order passed on 04.08.1999 and declined to interfere as if the court was required to sit in judgment over the order passed in CWJC No.11694 of 1997, though that is not the case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order it is noticeable that the appellant had visited this court earlier in the year 1997 challenging the punishment of censure imposed upon him by order dated 25.06.1993 and when this court was not inclined to interfere, the writ petition was withdrawn to agitate the matter departmentally. After that a fresh representation was made which was disposed of on 17.03.2001. Thereafter, as it appears, the appellant woke up from slumber and preferred the writ petition in the year 2009 challenging the order of punishment of censure as well as rejection of the representation. Even acceding to the argument canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant that the cause of action - 3 - would arise from the date of rejection of the representation, we are of the considered opinion the delay of eight years is enormous and the doctrine of delay and laches would get attracted to the case at hand. That apart, punishment of censure was imposed in the year 1997 and there is no justification or warrant to entertain the writ petition of this nature at this distance of time. In the result, we do not perceive any error in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the same is, accordingly, affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)