Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this writ petition a challenge is given to the order dated 14.04.1988 whereby the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. extended time for completion of the period of contract up to 15.05.1985 with a specific condition that it shall be subject to a penalty of Rs. 3% on work order amount. The petitioner while availing the extension of the period for completing the work made a protest with regard to the imposition of penalty by communication dated 14.04.1988. The representation submitted by the petitioner on 14.04.1988 was decided by the Regional Manager of the respondent-Corporation by communication dated 01.06.1988 by declining to waive penalty clause mentioned in the communication dated 14.04.1988. The petitioner being aggrieved by the communication dated 14.04.1988 preferred the writ petition on 03.09.1993. The contention of the petitioner is that the delay caused in filing the writ petition as he submitted certain representations even after 01.06.1988 to the respondents and the representations submitted by the petitioner subsequent to 01.06.1988 were decided by the Regional Manager of the Corporation by the communication dated 28.08.1993. The communication dated 28.08.1993 is placed on record as Annexure-10. By this communication the representation which was decided by the Corporation that too was submitted after a lapse of more than three years from the date of disposal of the representation dated 14.04.1988. No just explanation is given by the petition for causing such a delay in filing the writ petition. I do not find any force in the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition was admitted for hearing in the year 1993, therefore, preliminary objection with regard to delay and latches in filing the writ petition is having no material affect and the writ petition is required to be heard on merits. The writ petition was admitted by this Court by order dated 07.09.1993 in absence of the respondents. The notice for hearing the writ petition was treated to be served only on 05.02.1998. 2. The respondents thereafter filed a reply to the writ petition. The petition came up for hearing before the Court yesterday and then the same was ordered to be listed today for hearing. The notice for hearing the writ petition was treated to be served only on 05.02.1998. 2. The respondents thereafter filed a reply to the writ petition. The petition came up for hearing before the Court yesterday and then the same was ordered to be listed today for hearing. The writ petition in the entire period commencing from 07.09.1993 to 08.02.2005 came up before the Court only on 09.04.1997 when the Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he has already filed requisite notices for effecting service upon the respondents. In view of it the respondent was having no occasion to raise the objection with regard to delay in filing the petition at any earlier stage. Beside the above, the objection with regard to delay and latches remains available to the contesting party even at the time of hearing if not otherwise over-ruled by the Court at the time of admission or at any stage prior to final adjudication of the cause. 3. Interference under writ jurisdiction is also not required as the agreement for contract stipulates for arbitration proceedings to resolve disputes arising out of the agreement. 4. In view of whatever stated above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.