IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2247 of 2000 UTTIM SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 14/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court that the date of birth of the petitioner was rightly recorded in the service book as 4.3.1942 when the petitioner joined service in 1965. That there was no justification for the respondents to correct this date of birth to read as “6.12.1937” on the premise that if the date of birth in the service book as originally recorded be correct, then when the petitioner was sent for Home Guard training he was approximately 19 years of age and, thereby, to now shift back his date of birth in the year 1993 and consequently his date of retirement. Learned counsel sought to rely upon a Division Bench decision reported in 2002(1) P.L.J.R. 567 (Awadhesh Narain Singh versus The State of Bihar and Others). It is a settled law that every case its own features and facts as distinct from others. Be that as it may, the entire issue loses its relevance and becomes a matter of academic interest only now in view of the admitted position that the petitioner superannuated from his service on 31.12.1995. He then came to this Court much belatedly in February/March, 2000. This aspect of delay in coming to this Court was recorded in the order dated 10.1.2008. The jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution is discretionary. The discretion, - 2 - however, has to be tempered with reason so that it may not result in injustice. When the petitioner himself was not vigilant and the explanation given for this belated writ application in paragraph-15 leaves this Court thoroughly dissatisfied, to entertain the writ application at this belated stage shall not be justified. The writ application is accordingly dismissed as being barred by gross delay and laches. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )