JUDGMENT P.P. Gupta, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Raj Narain Rai, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and to give him retirement benefits. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed in Indian Air Force (IAF) as Airman on 15-6-i 964. He was, however, discharged from service on 30-1-C70. The ground for his discharge from service was that he was found medically unfit for further service in IAF. He claims to have made several representations to respondents No. 2 and 3 for taking him back in service and in the alternative, to give him retiral benefits. The respondents, however, did not pay heed to his representations, thereby compelling him to file the present writ petition. 3. On his own admission, the petitioner was discharged from service on 30-1-1970. This petition was filed on 13-2-1991, i.e. about 21 years after his discharge from service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length at the admission stage. He was called upon to explain the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. He submitted that the limitation Act does not apply to writ petitions and no period of limitation is prescribed by the Constitution to move this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, he submitted that this petition cannot be thrown away on the ground of delay alone. 5. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. This relief cannot be claimed as of right. It is well settled that when the relief of claimed is one relating to the enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, the court has to grant it once the right and infringement thereof are established. But if Article 226 is invoke "for any other purpose", it is discretionary power of the High Court to grant or to refuse such relief. One of the grounds for refusing relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner has been guilty of delay and laches. So, if the petitioner wants to invoke extraordinary remedy available under Article 226, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonable possible opportunity. One of the grounds for refusing relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner has been guilty of delay and laches. So, if the petitioner wants to invoke extraordinary remedy available under Article 226, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonable possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will be an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasiva Swamy v. Slate of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 has held : "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor it is that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters " 6. In the instant case, I do not find any extenuating circumstances to condone the delay in moving the present writ petition. On his own admission, the petitioner was discharged from service on 30-1-1970. A period of about 21 years has passed since then. He claims to have unsuccessfully made several representations. There is. however, no material on record, filed by the petitioner, to substantiate his claim of having made several representations since after 30-1-1970. Only one copy of the alleged representation, allegedly made to respondent No. 2, has been filed. It does not bear any date Even in the petition no date, on which this representation was moved, has been given. There is also no material available to verify as to when this representation was made. It was claimed that the petitioner's suit case, containing all the connected papers relating to his service, was stolen during his journey to Delhi. When questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a F.I.R. was promptly lodged by the petitioner about the theft of his suit case. The same has, however, not been filed, nor this fact is mentioned in the writ petition. When questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a F.I.R. was promptly lodged by the petitioner about the theft of his suit case. The same has, however, not been filed, nor this fact is mentioned in the writ petition. It can hardly be believed that the petitioner waited for about 21 years in the hope that the representations, allegedly made by him, may be decided by the respondents. In the circumstances, I an inclined to hold that the delay and laches in filing this writ petition have not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. It clearly shows that the petitioner has not been vigilant and there has been no diligence on his part in pursuing the remedy, and therefore, the delay of about 21 years in filing the present writ petition will certainly justify the dismissal of the writ petition on this ground alone. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is summarily dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.