IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.19 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Versus BHUPENDRA NARAYAN MANDAL UNIVERSITY & ORS. ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh For the respondents : None --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad --- Dated, the 29th August, 2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original writ petitioner. In the writ petition filed by him on 19.04.2006, he prayed for a direction to Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Madhepura to issue mark- sheet and original certificate of B.A. (Hons) Mathematics. The writ petition was not entertained by the single judge on the ground of laches and unexplained delay. 3. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant (original writ petitioner) had made several representations to the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance and when nothing was done, he was constrained to approach this court. He would submit that if at all there are laches, it is on the part of the University’s authorities. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner prosecuted his studies in B.Sc. Mathematics (Honours) in Sessions 1989 – 92, in 2 M.L.T. College, Saharsa. Part I and Part II examinations are said to have been taken by him from Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. Then, the College where he was studying became affiliated to the Bhpendra Narayan Mandal University, Madhepura. According to the petitioner, he appeared in Part – III examination from Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Madhepura. The said university did not declare the result as his marks were not found to be entered in cross-list. The petitioner made several representations, first of which is dated 8th September, 2000. The first representation was made by the petitioner almost after eight years. If within a reasonable time, the petitioner’s grievance was not redressed, he ought to have come to the court earlier but he chose to sit over the matter for a long time. 5. We are afraid, making representation after representation do not explain the delay nor justify coming to the court at such a belated stage. 6. In what we have noticed above, we have no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of the single judge. 7. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. Neyaz/- 3