- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) It appears that on 28/2/1991, 7 criminals were killed in an encounter with the police force. The appellant was also a member of the police force and because of the role played by him, the Superintendent of Police bhagalpur made a recommendation for award of bravery medal to appellant by his memo dated 16/5/1991. The said recommendation went to the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur, remained pending there for about 8 months. Thereafter for 7 month remained pending in the Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar.
(3.) When the medal was not awarded to the appellant, a writ petition Filed on behalf of the appellant before the High court. Respondent 7, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur filed a counter-affidavit. which has been referred to by the High court as follows: "A counter-affidavit has been filed in which Respondent 7 has take great pains to explain that the delay was not deliberate and was reasons beyond his control. We do not wish to make any comment respect of those explanations but it is apparent that the entire matter delayed for no fault on the part of the petitioner and now the petitioner being told that his case is not fit to be recommended for consideration for the award of the medal as it has become stale. "there after the High court observed: "However we sympathise with the petitioner, we find ourselves unable to give any relief to him as we are of the opinion that this is matter which is beyond our writ jurisdiction and does not warrant an 647 interference by a writ court. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to give any relief to the petitioner in this case. "towards the end, the High court said: "However, in case the authorities feel that there is any scope for making a recommendation in favour of the petitioner, we are sure his case would also be considered sympathetically. ";