IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4866 of 2009 DAMODAR PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 17/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 12.7.1999 of the District Accounts Officer, Munger re- fixing the basic salary of the petitioner. Strenuous reliance has been placed on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8333/99 preferred by certain others with regard to a similar grievance which came to be disposed on 29.7.2004. The writ petition does not contain any explanation why the petitioner did not move this Court for 10 long years. The law stands settled that those who are not vigilant with regard to protection of their rights cannot be put at par with those who have been vigilant about their rights and enforcement thereof. A litigant who indulges in fence sitting awaiting the result of another litigation and only thereafter wakes up for enforcement of his right is not entitled for the same order merely on his plea that a similar matter 2 has been decided by this Court and similar treatment should be accorded to him. The impugned order was passed on 12.7.1999. Others came to this Court promptly in 1999 and the writ petition was disposed on 2004. Five long years thereafter the petitioner has moved this Court. In a judgement reported in 2009(2) S.C.C. 479 (S.S. BALU AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS) the Supreme Court with regard to an indolent litigant seeking similar relief as those who have been vigilant held at paragraph-17 as follows:- “17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats enquiry”. The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage.” Learned counsel for the petitioner moulds his relief and prays for an appropriate direction to the respondents to dispose the representation. Even for that relief the petitioner still has to answer the issue of 3 delay. This Court has already had that there is no explanation in the writ petition for the same. While disposing the writ application with the observation that the respondents may consider the representation of the petitioner, this Court considers appropriate to re- emphasize the delay on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court for relief. The mere observation today for disposal of his representation by the authorities does not and shall not amount to a condonation by this Court of the delay by which he has moved this Court. The representation syndrome for which the petitioner seems to be engaging himself when this Court is giving an innocuous observation for disposal of his representation has been adequately considered by Supreme Court in a judgement reported in (2008) 10 S.C.C. 115 (C. JACOB Versus DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING AND ANOTHER ). It has been observed therein that a litigant seeking to assail an order belatedly is conscious that the Court may decline the claim at the threshold on grounds of delay. He, therefore, files a representation making out a ground to obtain an innocuous order for disposal of his representation by the Court. This is routinely allowed without examining the matter on merits. Little do the Courts realize the consequences of the same. 4 This Court can do no better than to quote paragraph- 11 of the same to hold that the mere observation for disposal of the representation by respondent No.14 shall not tantamount to opportunity to the petitioner to approach this Court again:- “11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may mount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgement of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action.” The writ application stands disposed. This Court expects that the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed expeditiously without unnecessary delay. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)