IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3169 of 2011 Uday Kumar, son of Late Narayan Das, resident of Friend Shakti Apartment, Patel Nagar, Patna-800023… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Beltron Bhawan, Shastrinagar, Bailey Road, Patna …………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Shabbir Ahmad and Shambhu SN Singh, Advocates For the BSPCB: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, GP 15. ----------- 2. 28.2.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bihar State Pollution Control Board which by its order dated 18.6.1997 had done away with the services of the petitioner as a daily wager Peon on the ground that in his appointment the prescribed procedure had not been followed. Against the same it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation had been filed which has been disposed of by order dated 19.3.2010. From perusal of the said letter dated 19.3.2010 it is evident that the same had been written by the Member Secretary of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board to the Advisor, Environment in the 2 Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar in relation to an application submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Minister which was considered in the Janta Darbar and thereafter referred to the Pollution Control Board. Copy of the letter dated 19.3.2010 was also sent to the petitioner for information on the basis of which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner having been disposed of on 19.3.2010, he has cause of action for coming to this Court. This Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the letter dated 19.3.2010 is concerned, it is clear that it is not on the representation of the petitioner addressed to the respondent-Board rather to the Chief Minister that the necessary information has been sent to the concerned Department. In any view of the matter, if the petitioner would have, as a matter of fact, represented before the respondent-authorities in the year 1997 then it was not open for him to have waited for 14 years before moving this Court. Any person must assert his right 3 with expedition and if a representation or reminders are not responded to by the authorities within a reasonable period of time then it is incumbent upon the person concerned to assert his right by approaching this Court within the said period. In no view of the matter, a period of 14 years can be said to be a reasonable period of time. The relief claimed by the petitioner, being a stale claim, is not fit to be entertained at this belated stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)