IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1848 of 2009 Ashok Kumar & Anr . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 05.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Despite the passage of nearly two and a half years, no counter affidavit has been filed in a claim as simple as to be considered for grant of first and second A.C.P. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the application may be disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to supplement the representation already filed by them. If the respondents propose to deny the benefits of A.C.P. to the petitioners, they shall be obliged to furnish the reasons in writing with an opportunity to meet the same, grant a personal hearing and then pass a reasoned and speaking order displaying full application of mind to the issues involved, transparency in the decision making process elucidating the thinking process in the mind of the decision maker to enable judicial review of the order, if necessary. 2 It may only be noticed that petitioner no. 1 is stated to have retired. The order shall apply to him with equal force. Let this order be complied with in its entirety within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order provided the petitioners themselves co-operate. It is expected that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential orders shall be passed simultaneously within the same period. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)