IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13970 of 2009 1. TAPAN DUTTA S/O BHUVAN DUTTA MOH- MILANPALLY, P.O., P.S. & DISTT. KISHANGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA-1 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 3. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA-1 4. THE PRINCIPAL CENTRAL SHARIRIK SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN PARISHAD, SITAMARHI, P.S. & DISTT. SITAMARHI with CWJC No.13972 of 2009 1. MD. MUJAMMIL HUSSAIN S/O GHULAM MURTAZA VILL- CHAKLA GHAT, P.O. CHAKLA GHAT, P.S. & DISTT. KISHANGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA-1 THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 3. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA-1 4. THE PRINCIPAL CENTRAL SHARIRIK SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN PARISHAD, SITAMARHI, P.S. & DISTT. SITAMARHI ----------- 2/ 05/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and for the Bihar School Examination Board. The petitioners claim that they passed the examination conducted for Diploma in Physical Education and /Certificate in Physical Education finally in the supplementary/annual examination in the year- 1994. They are aggrieved by publication of her results, failure to issue marksheet and grant certificates. Despite their claim of being a candidate with abilities to secure a first division they do appear not to be vigilant about protection of their own legal rights and educational interests. They have chosen to sleep over the matter till they filed a representation belatedly on 30.7.2008. 2 The contention that they have filed several representations is not appealing as no date of such representations have been stated, neither has any copy of such earlier representations been brought on record. The law stands well settled that evidence in a writ petition is based on documents. In absence of any documentary evidence, except for the representation dated 30.7.2008, this Court is not satisfied of even the bona fide of their pleadings in the writ application, much less the contentions made on their behalf. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact with regard to the turmoil that its orders will create today with regard to 14/15 years old issues in the Bihar School Examination Board. This will naturally require some persons in the Board to stop doing their daily work and start hunting for old records. The petitioners have only themselves to blame. This Court in a recent order in C.W.J.C. No.13410/09 has already held that the criteria for delay which may have held the field about a decade or two back of third party rights only cannot be considered fully relevant today considering the nature of pressure of litigations upon the courts and the common refrain that enough was not being done by the courts with regard to pendency of cases. 3 It is precisely cases of the present nature where a litigant chooses to wake up at his own convenience which are imposing unnecessary burden on the courts. Any order at this stage to decide their representation also shall only generate fresh litigation when the petitioners shall claim a fresh cause of action based on any orders that may be passed by the authorities. This is precisely what the Supreme Court has cautioned the courts with regard to what has been euphemistically described as the ‘representation syndrome’ in (2008) 10 S.C.C. 115 (C. JACOB Versus DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING AND ANOTHER). The writ application is barred by gross and inordinate delay. It merits no interference by this Court. Nothing in this order shall be construed as any restraint on the authority of the Board in the matter if it so otherwise decides. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)