IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1590 of 2008 DR. ZAKIR HUSSAIN PRIMARY TEACHERS EDUCATION COLLEGE & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 25th July, 2008. In this application (M.J.C.) the appellants have prayed for modification of an order dated 23rd June, 2008. 2. The senior counsel for the appellants contends that since the decision of the Single Judge dated 23rd March, 2005 in the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 3794 of 2004) was not within the knowledge of the appellant No.1-Institution, obviously the Institution was not aware as to whether the said decision had attained finality or not. He would submit that as a matter of fact that Letters Patent Appeal was preferred from the decision dated 23rd March, 2005, and although the said appeal was dismissed on 8th July, 2005, but in the order it has been recorded that the Institution was granted recognition for the year 1989-91 to 1994-96, which was later on changed to the - 2 - period 1979-81 to 1994-96. The senior counsel would submit that the period concerned in the present matter is 1979-81 to 1994-96 and, therefore, in the light of the order of the Division Bench dated 8th July, 2005, our order dated 23rd June, 2008 requires modification. 3. It is true that the counsel appearing for the parties did not bring to our notice the order dated 8th July, 2005, passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.398 of 2005, Amod Prasad Singh & Others Vs. The Bihar School Examination Board. But the fact of the matter is that the appeal has been dismissed. In our considered view this does not affect our order dated 23rd June, 2008 whereby we upheld the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches and inordinate delay. It is pertinent to notice that even the Division Bench judgment dated 8th July, 2005, in the case of Amod Prasad Singh, upon which reliance has been placed by the senior counsel for the applicants in support of this modification application, the appeal was dismissed and it was held that the Single Judge was justified in not invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it suffered from long delay. This is what the Division Bench noticed: - “The other compelling ground for this Court to negative the claim of the appellants is, that if the examination was held in the year 1984, where have they been for all these 20 years? Will a discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be available for such persons who are coming to this Court to rake up the matter after 20 years by taking shelter of the resolution of the year 2004. On this ground also we are not persuaded to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.” - 3 - 4. The admitted facts lead to the only conclusion and no other conclusion that prayer in the writ petition suffered from the vice of laches. We, thus, find no justification to modify our order dated 23rd June, 2008. 5. M.J.C. is dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-