ORDER Writ application is dismissed on the sole ground that it is a stale and belated claim which is sought to be raised now, more so coupled with the fact that previous writ application of the petitioner stood dismissed in terms of Annexure-9 and no step was taken by him for its restoration. 2. The Court does not have time for such litigants who approach the Court at their convenience. In this regard a recent decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, which is the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T. T. Murali Babu, decided on February 10, 2014, is a complete answer to the issue. Paragraph 16 of the said decision is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others? ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons – who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 2014(3) PLJR 712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. Ganga Prasad Singh – Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar through Land Reforms Commissioner cum Secretary, Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna & Ors. - Respondents Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23629 of 2012 Decided on: 13-03-2014 Advocate Appeared For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. Nirbhay Kr. Singh Case Referred Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T. T. Murali Babu, decided on February 10, 2014 ORDER Writ application is dismissed on the sole ground that it is a stale and belated claim which is sought to be raised now, more so coupled with the fact that previous writ application of the petitioner stood dismissed in terms of Annexure-9 and no step was taken by him for its restoration. 2. The Court does not have time for such litigants who approach the Court at their convenience. 2. The Court does not have time for such litigants who approach the Court at their convenience. In this regard a recent decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, which is the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T. T. Murali Babu, decided on February 10, 2014, is a complete answer to the issue. Paragraph 16 of the said decision is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others? ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons – who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.”