IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10325 of 2010 1. Mahendra Singh S/O Late Ram Pukar Singh R/O Vill.- Raghauli, P.S.- Bisfi, Distt.- Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division 3. The Collector, Madhubani 4. The Additional Collector, Madhubani 5. The S.D.O., Phulparas, Distt.- Madhubani 6. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Madhubani 7. The Anchal Adhikari, Khutauna, Distt.- Madhubani 8. The D.C.L.R. Phulparas, Distt.- Madhubani ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. ------------ 3. 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.2003 of the Collector, Madhubani awarding him the punishment for stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and denial of promotion for the next five years as affirmed in Appeal on 3.5.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay was occasioned due to a review preferred in 2006 before the appellate authority under a misconception that he had jurisdiction when in fact he does not possess the same. Counsel for the State has rightly objected to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground of delay, the appellate order having been 2 passed in 2005. In a writ petition the primary evidence are documents to support the pleadings. The bald assertion in Paragraph-17 of the writ application that a review application was preferred before the Commissioner under a misconception in April, 2006 does not satisfy the Court as no specific date for institution of the review application much less any copy of the same has been annexed to the writ application. The pleading is also silent on which date the petitioner became aware of the lack of jurisdiction in the Commissioner to entertain the review application. The writ application is dismissed on ground of delay and laches. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)