JUDGMENT : Hemant Gupta, J. Re. : Interlocutory Application No.8487 of 2015 The application is for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly. Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.1886 of 2015 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 7th of April, 2015 wherein, challenge to the order dated 9th of March, 2013 whereby, request of the appellant to start new P.G. courses in Materia Medica, Homoeopathic Repertory, Homoeopathic Pharmacy, Practise of Medicine and Organon of Medicine and Pediatrics was declined. 4. The grievance of the appellants is that a notice dated 18th of March, 2013 was served upon the appellants to appear before the designated hearing committee in the department of AYUSH on 22nd March, 2013 at 11 A.M. The appellants informed through mail and letter that on such a short notice, it is not feasible to reach Delhi due to non-availability of reservation in trains due to peak season of Holi festival on 28th of March, 2013 in Bihar. It is thereafter, the appellants were communicated on 16th of April, 2013 that the appellants have failed to appear and that the claim raised by the appellants cannot be accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the notice was issued on 18th of March, 2013 for 22nd March, 2013 and since there was no sufficient time, the representative of the appellants could not get reservation to appear before the authority at New Delhi. 6. The fact remains that the College received information on 18th of March, 2013 itself. The hearing on 22nd March, 2013 was fixed after finding the availability of the representative of the appellants as is apparent from the communication dated 16th April, 2013. Still further, the four days' notice was not an impossible notice which could not be complied with as the connectivity through train is not the only mode of conveyance reaching Delhi. 7. Still further, the order was passed on 16th of April, 2013, but the appellants filed writ petition only in April, 2015, i.e. after two years. Still further, the four days' notice was not an impossible notice which could not be complied with as the connectivity through train is not the only mode of conveyance reaching Delhi. 7. Still further, the order was passed on 16th of April, 2013, but the appellants filed writ petition only in April, 2015, i.e. after two years. If the grievance of the appellants was that there was not sufficient notice, the appellants should have been vigilant enough and invoked the jurisdiction of the Court soon after the communication was received so as to raise a grievance. Long silence on the part of the appellants shows their lack of seriousness to the objections raised by the respondents or other collateral reasons. 8. We do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Single Bench which warrants interference in the present intra Court appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.