ORAL ORDER The petitioners, three in numbers have filed this writ application for issuance of an appropriate direction to the Respondent Bhupendra Narayan Mandal, University, Madhepura to issue provisional certificate of Bachelor of Arts in favour of the petitioners who according to them were the students for the Sessions 1993-1996 of Ram Pari Devi College, Kursela, Katihar. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they had taken admission for B.A. (Hons.) in different subjects for the Sessions 1993-1996 and they appeared in all the examinations and cleared all the three parts for the said examination. 3. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner no.1 filed an application for issuance of provisional certificate in the year 2004 but till date the certificate has not been issued. There is no averment with regard to other writ petitioners as to whether they also approached the University for grant of such certificates or not. 4. There is an averment in paragraph 10 of the writ application that reason for not issuing the provisional certificates is the fact that the College in question was not affiliated with the University. In the same paragraph there is vague statement that similarly situated students of the said college have been granted certificates. 5. I am not inclined to entertain the writ application in view of the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The petitioners are said to have passed the 1993-1996 sessions of B.A. (Hons.) examination. After eight years, one of them is said to have approached the University for grant of provisional certificate. Eight years thereafter the present writ application has been filed. 6. It is well settled that equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted only to such persons who are vigilant/alert of their rights and not to be indolent persons. It has been reiterated by this Court and Apex Court also that belated claims cannot be entertained in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless tangible explanation is tendered by the persons approaching the Court for issuance of such relief. 7. The Supreme Court in case of S.S. Balu Vs. It has been reiterated by this Court and Apex Court also that belated claims cannot be entertained in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless tangible explanation is tendered by the persons approaching the Court for issuance of such relief. 7. The Supreme Court in case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 categorically held that delay defeats equity and where a petitioner approaches the Court after a long delay, relief prayed for may be denied on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of fact that he is similarly situated to other candidates who obtained benefit of a judgment. Reference may be made to paragraph 17 of the judgment which is quoted hereinbelow for quick reference:- “17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. The Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petition approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In NDMC V. Pan Singh 9 this Court held: (SCC p. 283, para 16) “16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction”. (See also Virender Chaudhary V. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. 10 at SCC p. 302, para 17.)” 9. In case of Naresh Kumar Vs. Department of Atomic Energy also reported in ( 2010) 7 SCC 525, dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay and laches was upheld as the rejection of the appellant’s representation was challenged eight years after the date of rejection. 10. Similar view has been taken in case of State of Jharkhand Vs. K.N. Farms & Industries (P) Ltd. Reported in (2012) 5 SCC 297 as well as Delhi Administration Vs. Kaushalya Thakur reported in (2012) 5 SCC 412 where there was delay of four years in approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India from the rejection of an application for allotment of plot. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground that belated claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained at this stage in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. For the reason that this writ application is being dismissed on the ground of delay and laches without going into the merits of the case, the petitioners shall have the liberty to approach the University raising their claims. It is made clear that the dismissal of this writ application will not come in the way of the University considering the rightful claim of these petitioners in accordance with law.