Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.) The above Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to the Order dated 27.03.2001 made in C.T.S.A.No.508/2000 and quash the same. 2. Without going into the merits of the case, the above Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. In the affidavit, the delay in filing the above Writ Petition is sought to be explained as follows:- ''It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned Order was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner [CT], Salem on 23.10.2001 and after calling for the relevant assessment records and after having prepared the necessary review report the records were forwarded to the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 07.01.2002. The Legal Wing of the Commercial Taxes Dept. After considering the merits of the case and the issues involved thought it fit to circulate the files for obtaining legal opinion on the feasibility of agitating the matter further and therefore the records were sent on 28.08.2002. On receipt of opinion, the necessary papers were made ready and Writ Petition is filed now. In the above process if any delay has occasioned as laches has become attributable to the petitioner and it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to condone the same and decide the matter on merits." 3. Admittedly, the impugned Order was received in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner [CT], Salem on 23.10.2001. It is after a delay of more than two months, the records were forwarded to the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 07.01.2002. Thereafter, after a delay of more than seven months, files have been circulated to the Legal Wing of the Commercial Tax Department for obtaining legal opinion on the feasibility of agitating the matter further, on 28.08.2002. 4. There is nothing in the affidavit to explain as to when Legal Opinion was obtained and when the papers were sent to the Government Pleader's Office for filing Writ Petition etc. The affidavit is bereft of details regarding the cause for the delay that occasioned in filing the Writ Petition. 4. There is nothing in the affidavit to explain as to when Legal Opinion was obtained and when the papers were sent to the Government Pleader's Office for filing Writ Petition etc. The affidavit is bereft of details regarding the cause for the delay that occasioned in filing the Writ Petition. The above writ petition is filed on 10.4.2006, after a delay of 4 years, 5 months and 17 days i.e. after the delay of about 1627 days. 5. The power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, and its exercise must be judicious and reasonable. Persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justified the laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court for grant of such discretionary relief. 6. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles of law to be applied in the matter of exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when there is laches and undue delay in approaching the Court for remedy. some of such decisions are: a. TILOKCHAND MOTICHAND Vs. H.B.MUNSHI (1969) 1SCC 110 : AIR 1970 SC 898 ; b. AFLATOON Vs. Lt. GOVERNOR, DELHI (1975) 4 SCC 285 : AIR 1974 SC 2077 . The principles of law laid down in the above cases can be succinctly summarised as under: One of the grounds for refusing relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner has been guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, if the petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will be an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. It is essential that persons who are aggrieved by any order of the Government or any executive action should approach the High Court with utmost expedition. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will be an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. It is essential that persons who are aggrieved by any order of the Government or any executive action should approach the High Court with utmost expedition. In an appropriate case the High Court may not exercise its discretion and may refuse to grant relief if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the other party. 7. The underlying object has been succinctly explained by Sir Barnes Peacock in the following words: '' Now the doctrine of laches in Court of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted; in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material... Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy." 8. The underlying object is that the courts do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters which have already been disposed of or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime, or where there is no reasonable explanation for delay. This principle applies even in case of infringement of fundamental rights. 9. Further, in AIR 1964 SC 1006 (1012) (STATE OF M.P. Vs. BHAILAL), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows: "This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable." 10. BHAILAL), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows: "This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable." 10. The petitioner has failed to explain properly and satisfactorily the undue delay of 1163 days, which occurred between the date of the impugned order and the date of filing of the writ petition. As pointed out above, there is absolutely no explanation at all for not filing the writ petition within the reasonable time. Even for filing civil suits, in most of the cases, a time limit of three years is fixed in the Limitation Act. Here, the writ petition has been filed much beyond the period of 3 years and the delay has not at all been explained. Simply because the petitioner happens to be the state, different yardstick cannot be applied while considering the cause for the delay. In this case, the Tribunal passed the order as early as on 28.8.2002 and as such the first respondent assessee would have conducted its business and arranged its finances taking into account its non-liability to pay the quantum of tax involved in this case. In such circumstances, the right which has accrued to the assessee by reason of the delay in filing, the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. In this case, as pointed out above, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the undue delay on the part of the state in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. On the ground of laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the above writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is also dismissed.