Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioners have challenged in this petition the decision dated 28.7.93 of District Level Committee signed by the Collector on 27.8.93 (Annex.5) and fixing of rates (Annex.6). This petition was presented on 5.11.1998 before this Court which has come up for admission today. The aforesaid decision and the fixation of rates is made on the basis of rule 59 B which is inserted in Rajasthan Stamps Rules by notification dated 24.4.91 published in the Gazette of 25.4.1991. Learned counsel Shri Agarwal for the petitioners submitted that rule 59 B of the Rajasthan Stamps Rules is ultra vires, therefore, the decision of District Level Committee dated 28.7.93 and signed by Collector 17.8.93 and fixation of rates by the Committee at Annex.6 are liable to be quashed and set aside in view of the Apex Court judgment reported in AIR 1996 S.C. page 2994 (1) and of this Court reported in 1991 R.R.D. page 89 (2) and also held by Orissa High Court in a case reported in AIR 1992 Orissa page 232 (3). He further submitted that writ petition no. 4653/90 and writ petition no. 632/96 filed by other petitioners challenging the similar rule and decision arrived at by the District Level Committee on 28.7.93 and signe by the Collector 28.8.93 and fixation of rate have not only admitted but orders of status quo is also granted in those matters. Therefore, this petition be also admitted and ordered to be heard alongwith those petitions. (2). In the first sitting when the matter was called out, Mr. Agarwal gave reference of only one writ petition no. 632/96, therefore original papares of that case were called and during the course of arguments in second sitting Mr. Agarwal made reference to writ petition no. 4056/95, therefore, the papers of writ petition 4056/95 were not before the Court. However, from the papers of writ petition no. 632/96 it appears that without issuing notice to the other and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge of this Court straight away admitted the writ petition on 11.3.1996 and ordered to issue notice, and on stay petition only notice was ordered to be issued. However, on 24.12.96 in stay petition once again notice was ordered to be issued and made returnable in 8 weeks and status quo as it was existed on that day was ordered to be maintained. Mr. However, on 24.12.96 in stay petition once again notice was ordered to be issued and made returnable in 8 weeks and status quo as it was existed on that day was ordered to be maintained. Mr. Agarwal has also made a submission at Bar that similar order of status was or- dered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in stay petition filed in writ petition no.4056/95 on 24.7.98. (3). Under the circumstances, the question is as to whether this petition should also be the admitted and interim order be passed because the other petitions have been admitted and order of status quo is granted. It is well settled principle of law that those persons who are vigilent of their rights and come to the Court within reasonable time they are entitled for the relief and those persons who slept over their right and on fine morning if they prefer to file writ petition after lapse of more than 5 years of the decision taken by the /Collector and the District Level Committee would not be entitled for any relief. As stated earlier, writ petition no. 632/96 was straight away admitted by the learned Single Judge without considering the fact that it was filed late by three years. Be that as it may. This petition is hopelessly time barred by a period of five years and three months for which there is no explanation whatsoever. (4). Under the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is required to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.