IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.684 of 2008 PARMANAND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha For the respondents : None --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 3rd September, 2008 This letters patent appeal suffers from delay of sixty seven days. For condonation thereof, an application ( IA. No.5305 of 2006) has been made. 2. Even if, we condone the delay for the cause shown in the application, we are of the considered view that the letters patent appeal does not deserve to be entertained. 3. The counsel for the appellant would submit that for want of appearance on behalf of the petitioner, the only course open to the single judge was to dismiss the review application in default and not to deal with the matter on merits. In this regard, the counsel sought to place the reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Prabha Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2008(2) PLJR 219. 4. Having considered the decision of the Division Bench 2 in the case of Parbha Kumari thoughtfully, we do not think that any absolute proposition has been propounded by the Division Bench that in the absence of the petitioner or his counsel, the writ petition could only be dismissed for want of prosecution and not on merit. The use of expression “ordinarily” in paragraph -3 of the report, supports what we have observed above. 5. In paragraph -3 of the report, the Division Bench observed thus: “Having perused the impugned order, we find that writ petition was not dismissed for want of prosecution, which course in our opinion ordinarily ought to have been adopted by a Court, when there is none in the court to prosecute the case on behalf of the petitioner.” 6. The single judge has considered the matter in right perspective justifying no interference by us. 7. Letters patent appeal is dismissed. This disposes of the application for condonation of delay (IA. No.5305 of 2006) as well. 8. After dismissal of the appeal, the stay application does not survive and, accordingly, IA. No.5306 of 2008 stands dismissed also. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/