the subject area was cancelled because of lack of use. Either way the ration card, which was a material document, should have been placed before the LG or at least before this Court. 11. This brings me to the aspect pertaining to delay. 11.1 In this context, it is required to be noted that DUSIB, neither before this Court when the petitioner had approached it by way of a writ petition in the earlier round nor before the LG, took any objection with regard to latches. As a matter of fact, DUSIB opposed the writ petition only on one ground, which was, availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner. The Court, while, relegating the petitioner to a remedy by way of an appeal, specifically, observed that the LG should decide the appeal uninfluenced by the fact that the remedial action was delayed. DUSIB did not assail this order of the Court. Therefore, today, in my view, DUSIB should not be allowed to contend that because there are latches, the petitioner should be denied relief. This plea, according to me, at this juncture, is both untenable and unfair. 12. The judgments which Mr. Chauhan has cited turn on the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in those cases. Insofar as Brahm Prakash's case is concerned, it deals with a case where the petitioner in that matter had approached the court to gain admission to an LLM course for the year prior to one in which he had been granted admission. The petitioner, in that case, was wrongly denied admission to the 2014 LLM batch. While the petitioner was attempting to glean information via the RTl route qua the denial of admission, he sat for the 2015 entrance exam. Having qualified, the petitioner joined the 2015 batch. The petitioner, as indicated above, sought admission thereafter in the 2014 batch. The court denied relief to the petitioner in that matter
