ORDER 1. This case is hopelessly barred by limitation and unreasonable delay and laches. The order dated 06-01-1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the 3rd respondent herein under section 170(8) of tile C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code") was assailed stage of the proceedings. He filed the first appeal before the Collector and the second appeal before the Commissioner, Department of Revenue after the prescribed limitation and he is approaching this Court invoking discretionary power vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to exercise in his favour, after a lapse of more than 4 years and 3 months, without offering even a word of explanation for this inordinate delay. 2. It is well known principle that the Court helps diligent and not indolent who sleeps over his right. Though, there is no specific period of limitation, the High Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary, discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution where the petitioner is guilty of laches or undue delay, for which there is no satisfactory explanation. Unless the facts and circumstance of the case clearly justify the laches or undue delay, the petitioner could not be entitled to relief. 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 a good 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 or order of any statutory authority should approach the High Court with utmost expedition. The underlying object is that the Courts do not encourage agitation of State claims and exhuming matters which have already been disposed of or where the rights of the third parties have accrued in the meantime, or where there is no reasonable explanation for delay. This principle applies even in case of infringement offW1damental rights. Where there is inordinate delay in filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary powers. The fact that third party's rights were not created is hardly a ground for interference. This principle also applies to orders which are void. Very recently, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Where there is inordinate delay in filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary powers. The fact that third party's rights were not created is hardly a ground for interference. This principle also applies to orders which are void. Very recently, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxmi1 the Supreme Court pleased to hold that: "Though the order may be void, if the party does not approach the court within reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the discretion has been conferred on the Court, the Court may in appropriate case decline to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order was void." (emphasis supplied) 3. There is no hard and fast rule as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the Court. However, that discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. 4. In Tilokahand Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi ,Hidayatullah, C.J. was pleased to observe: "The question is one of discretion for this court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought within Limitation Act by reason of some article but this court need not necessarily give the total time to the litigant to move this court under Article 32. Similarly, in a suitable case this court may entertain such a petition even after a lapse of time. It will all depend on what the breach of the Fundamental Right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose." (emphasis supplied) 5. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of T.N. J, the Supreme Court observed thus: "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of T.N. J, the Supreme Court observed thus: "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it 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 p0'Yers under Article 226 in 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." (emphasis supplied) 6. As pointed out supra, in this case, the petitioner was guilty of laches in pursuing the legal remedies before the appellate authorities under the Code as well as before this Court. Although, the petitioner has filed this writ petition after a delay of 4 years and 3 months, not one word of explanation is offered in the writ petition. On the other hand, in para 4 of the writ petition he has stated that "there is no delay in filing the instant case and it is well within the period of limitation." Quite curious and strange assertion indeed! All the three Statutory Authorities have refused the relief to the petitioner. On merit also, I am satisfied that there is no failure of justice. In the circumstance, I dismiss this writ petition being devoid of merit and also on the ground of delay and laches. No costs. Petition Dismissed.