Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the appellant. 2. The learned Judge has given several reasons why the court is not granting relief as sought by the petitioner. Having noticed all the factors and circumstances, the learned judge on page 7 of the order records : "However, in the facts of the case, as substantive delay has already been made this Court directs the petitioner to move the State authorities within a period of six weeks from today and if such an application is filed for inspection of the petitioner-college in view of specific direction as quoted above given in the case of Mangla Kamla Homeopathic Medical College and others (supra) and if they fulfil alt the criteria, petitioners institution should be inspected and appropriate orders passed and the Respondent- B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University shall also pass consequential orders in view of orders passed by this Court." 3. In the circumstances, the court did enquire from the learned counsel that after the indulgence had been granted by the learned judge why it has not been availed of. The answer received by the court was that the time permitted by the learned judge has expired. The court also inquired whether the petitioner would like to seek indulgence from the learned judge for extension of time. The answer was in the negative. 4. In the present matter, the reason why the learned judge did not grant relief on the petition is that a Special Leave Petition had been filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and it had been withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court for review of the order on the writ petition. The learned judge has recorded on page 2 of his order that "petitioner thought it desirable not to move this Court for review of the earlier order of the writ Court". 5. The other reason recorded by the learned Judge for not granting the relief is recorded on page 4 of the order : "On the query of the Court as to whether the petitioner had moved the Respondent-State along with a copy of the order of this Court, asking them for inspecting his institution and had deposited the requisite fees, etc., it was contended that it was not obligatory on their part, as the order of the Court was passed in the open Court room in presence of the parties. Admittedly, the reqisite fees for inspection were never eposited. As regard the judgment of Supreme Court is concerned, the Same relates to one of the respondents the case of Mangla Kamla Homeopathic Medical College and others (supra)". 6. The last reasons recorded by the learned judge for declining to interfere on the petition are on pages 6 & 7 which are reproduced : "In the facts of the case, as inspite specific relief granted by the Supreme court to move this Court in review and as the petitioner allowed the said order the Division Bench in CWJC No. 4343 of 1993 to become a final order and as subsequent thereto he has moved this Court by filing Annexure-3 and as the same has been disposed of in terms of order passed in CWJC. No. 2562 of 1996 and other analogous cases, the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is that the college in question can be allowed to be inspected afresh in view of earlier directions of this Court as contained in Annexure 3 and the detailed order as passed in the case of Mangal Kamla Homeopathic, Medical College and others (supra)". "Admittedly, the laches is of the petitioner. The petitioner has to approach the State to get the institution inspected which inspite of order of this Court has not been done. It cannot be obligatory on the part of the State to go on inspecting of the the Homeopathic College which is either established or proposed to be established. Had the petitioner moved the State after completing the formalities and the State had not complied with the directive of this Court perhaps some specific directions could have been issued in their favour." 7. In the circumstances, with a sufficiently reasoned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere on the appeal. Dismissed.