IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12051 of 2006 Ravindra Kumar son of Sri Janki Yadav, resident of village Lakhawar, P.S. Ghosi, District Jehanabad.. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihars, 2. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Jehanabad, 3. The Additional District Supply Officer, Sadar, Jehanabad… … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State: AC to GA X ----------- 2 01.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner challenges Annexure 1, which is a show- cause notice dated 01.06.2000 issued to him by the Assistant Supply Officer, Sadar, Jehanabadas well as the order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jehanabad, whereby the licence for P.D.S. dealership has been cancelled finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding cannot be held to be legal as the show-cause notice dated 01.06.2000(Annexure 1) has been issued by the Assistant Supply Officer, Jehanabad, who was, admittedly, not the licensing authority. Learned counsel has placed reliance on few orders passed in this regard, which have been appended as Annexures 3 and 4, respectively. Learned counsel for the State, however, at the outset 2 pointed out that the orders passed in the year 2000 have been challenged by filing this writ application in 2006, after delay of about six years and there is no explanation for such delay in the writ application. Therefore, the writ application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport and others, as reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 467. It is submitted that the Apex Court has upheld that if the persons have not filed any petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen they cannot take the benefit thereof resorting to legal proceedings at such a belated stage. They cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person even if the order has been passed in similar cases. I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any averment in the writ petition explaining the delay in preferring the writ application after lapse of six years. Even the plea that the petitioner has moved this Court only after some relief in similar cases has been granted to some 3 other persons, would not be available to him for the reason that all those orders appear to have been passed in 2001-02 itself and there is no explanation as to why the petitioner waited even for 4-5 years thereafter for filing this writ application. The Apex Court in Sulochana Chandrakant Galande (supra) has held that even the aforesaid plea would be wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches. However, in the present case, even no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in the entire writ application. It is also not a case where the law, under which the impugned order has been passed, has been declared ultra vires/unconstitutional in any proceeding. In above view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, this writ application suffers from the vice of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and has to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)