IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13140 of 2007 Mainejar Mishra 'Sant', Son of Late Deodhari Mishra, Resident of Village – Raghunathpur, P.S. – Turkaulia, District – East Champaran. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. 4. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) Don Canal Division, Ram Nagar, West Champaran. 7. The Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No. 7, Galudih, P.O. – Mahulia, P.S. – Ghatshila, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ----------- Respondents ----------- 2 19.07.2011 Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhat Kumar Verma, learned AAG No. 5, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 & 7/State of Jhakhand. The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 01.04.1999 issued by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,09,405/- was directed to be recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner. The recovery was to be made at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from his retrial dues. In this case of-course no counter affidavit has been filed till date. However, a preliminary objection was raised by Sri Verma that the order for recovery was passed in the year 1999, and thereafter, the total amount of Rs. 1,09,405/- has already been deducted. The petitioner, thereafter had approached the Jharkhand High Court vide 2 CWJC No. 3070 of 1999 (R). However, the Jharkhand High Court did not interfere with the matter and only disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the authority concerned. It was submitted that even the Jharkhand High Court had not interfered with the matter and only liberty was granted for filing representation. Even after order dated 8.6.2001 the petitioner did not take any step and after lapse of about eight years from the date of order of recovery the present writ petition was filed. Sri Verma has also submitted that the order impugned discloses a detailed reason for recovery which requires no interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the liberty was granted by the Jharkhand High Court in CWJC No. 3070 of 1999(R), the petitioner filed representations and last representation was filed in the month of December, 2006, and since no decision was taken on his representation, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court by filing the present writ petition. Be that as it may, fact remains that impugned order was passed in the year 1999 and the Jharkhand High Court on the writ petition filed by the petitioner did not interfere with the matter. The order of the Jharkhand High Court was passed in the year 2001, and thereafter, the petitioner did not take any step to question the order, and after long delay in the month of October 2007 the present writ petition was filed. Moreover, recovery was already affected long back. 3 In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that in such a stale matter writ jurisdiction may not be exercised. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)