ORDER : This is an assigned matter by virtue of the order dated 23rd November 2017 passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on the administrative side. 2. Patliputra Medical College and Hospital through its Public Information Officer has challenged the order dated 1st September 2015 passed in Appeal No. 411 of 2014. 3. The relevant portion of the order dated 1st September 2015 reads as under: ^^---------vihydrkZ }kjk bu rF; dks lkeus ykus ds ckn vk;ksx us tu lwpuk inkf/kdkjh dks 23-07-15 dh lquokbZ esa funsZ'k fn;k Fkk fd oks fo"k;&oLrq dh xaHkhjrk dks le>rs gq, vihydrkZ dks lHkh okafNr lwpuk;sa miyC/k djk;s vU;Fkk vk;ksx ds ikl muds f[kykQ dkjokbZ djus ds vykok dksbZ fodYi ugha gksxkA reke vk'kadkvksa vkSj fo"k; dh xaHkhjrk ls tu lwpuk inkf/kdkjh dks voxr djkus ds ckn Hkh tu lwpuk inkf/kdkjh us vihydrkZ ds vf/kdkjksa dh j{kk djus gsrq u gh lwpuk miyC/k djkuk mfpr le>k vkSj u gh vk;ksx ds funsZ'kksa dk vuqikyu fd;kA vihydrkZ }kjk 15-07-13 dks tu lwpuk inkf/kdkjh ds ;gk¡ vkosnu fn;s tkus ds ckotwn vkt rd lEiw.kZ lwpuk miyC/k ugha djk;hA eryc vkj0Vh0vkbZ0 ,DV esa fd;s x;s Áko/kku dk ?kksj mYya?ku fd;k x;k vkSj rhl fnu dh le;&lhek chr tkus ds ckotwn lwpuk miyC/k ugha djk;h x;h] vr% vk;ksx tu lwpuk inkf/kdkjh ij vkj0Vh0vkbZ0 ,DV dh /kkjk&201¼1½ ds rgr 25]000@& #i;s dk tqekZuk vf/kjksfir djrk gSA blds vykok vihydrkZ dks lwpuk ÁkIr djus ds fy, nks o"kksZa rd la?k"kZ djus vkSj mUgsa vkfFkZd {kfriwfrZ dh HkjikbZ ds fy, vk;ksx vkj0Vh0vkbZ dh /kkjk&19¼8½¼ch½ ds rgr vihydrkZ dks 50]000@&#i;s dh {kfriwfrZ nsus dk vkns'k nsrk gSA- -----^^ 4. This writ petition was filed on 11th September 2015 with defects. 5. In the coming more than 1½ years no step was taken by the petitioner for prosecuting the present writ petition. 6. On 18th April 2017 this writ petition came-up on Board for hearing and the following order has been passed by this Court: “Learned counsel, Mr. Sandip Kr. Burnwal undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent no. 5 within 1 week. He also seeks time to file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks time to file supplementary affidavit indicating the developments which have taken place after passing of the impugned order dated 1.9.2015 and whether the amount of penalty and compensation has been realized or not. 5 within 1 week. He also seeks time to file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks time to file supplementary affidavit indicating the developments which have taken place after passing of the impugned order dated 1.9.2015 and whether the amount of penalty and compensation has been realized or not. List accordingly after 2 weeks in the 1st week of May, 2017.” 7. In response to the aforesaid query of the Court an affidavit dated 6th October 2017 has been filed stating as under: “2. That the aforesaid matter was taken up for its hearing on 18.04.2017 and Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the Petitioner to bring on record the developments which have taken place after passing of the Impugned Order dated 01.09.2015 and to state whether the amount of penalty and compensation has been realized or not. 3. That upon verification of the relevant record of this case, it is humbly submitted that since the Impugned Ex-parte Order dated 01.09.2015 [Annexure-16] passed in Appeal No.411 of 2014 in the case of Satpal Singh Broko Vs. Public Information Officer, Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Dhanbad by learned State Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi is under challenge by filing the present W.P. [C] No.4410 of 2015 with a prayer to stay the operation of the said Impugned Order and as such the amount of the penalty and compensation has not yet been realized by the JSIC, Ranchi nor deposited by the Petitioner.” 8. Short of saying improper, this Court finds that this affidavit is highly unsatisfactory. No authority howsoever high has the powers to tinker with the order passed by a judicial authority. The only remedy available to the executive is to file an appeal, review or application for modification of the order, and so long as there is no order of stay of the order under challenge the executive has no excuse not to comply with the order passed by a judicial authority. 9. On behalf of the petitioner, various contentions have been raised but this Court is not inclined to advert to any of those contentions. A litigant which does not prosecute the matter for six long years and makes excuse of pendency of the writ petition cannot be permitted to ignore and defy the order of a judicial authority. 9. On behalf of the petitioner, various contentions have been raised but this Court is not inclined to advert to any of those contentions. A litigant which does not prosecute the matter for six long years and makes excuse of pendency of the writ petition cannot be permitted to ignore and defy the order of a judicial authority. At every stage, starting from filing of the writ petition, there has been delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised on a mere raising an arguable issue and, that too, in a situation like the present one. 10. Now without saying much taking note of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, W.P(C) No. 4410 of 2015 is dismissed.