ORDER : P. Devadass, J. In this petition, the second respondent viz., the Commissioner, Thirupathur Municipality, Thirupathur, Vellore District in W.P.No.18805 of 2008 seeks condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal against the order of the Writ Court passed on 12.3.2009. 2. The writ petitioner, the Vegetable Vendors Welfare Association, Thirupathur has sought for issuance of mandamus, forbearing the Thirupathur Municipality and the District Collector, Vellore District from taking coercive steps against the members of the association from carrying on vegetable business in the shopping complex belonging to the Municipality. The Municipality opposed it. 3. On 12.3.2009, the Writ Court disposed of the writ petition taking note of the stand of the Municipality that in the allotment of shops in the shopping complex, claims of the members of the association will also be considered and they will be accommodated and possession would be handed over soon. 4. Aggrieved, after a delay of 1641 days, the Municipality filed Writ Appeal with a delay condonation petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Municipality has filed a petition in the Writ Court to modify its order, dated 12.3.2009, subsequently, it had also filed a Review Petition, after disposal of the same, the Writ Appeal has been filed and that is how the delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that by condoning the delay, no prejudice would be caused to the writ petitioner. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent also reiterated the said submissions. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner contended that the members of the association are carrying on their vegetable business for a considerable period, however, the Municipality attempted to indirectly evict them and induct some other persons in the shops, in the circumstances, they got relief from the Writ Court. Now, again, the Municipality wants to vex them by filing a Writ Appeal after enormous delay and the delay has not been properly explained. 8. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition and also the materials on record. 9. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner/Thirupathur Municipality seeks condonation of delay of 1641 days caused in preferring the Writ Appeal. 10. 8. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition and also the materials on record. 9. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner/Thirupathur Municipality seeks condonation of delay of 1641 days caused in preferring the Writ Appeal. 10. In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (2010)5 SCC 459 with regard to condonation of delay the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- ''14....... The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 11. It is apposite here to notice the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Brijesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others (2014)11 SCC 351 ): ''The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts. The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.'' 12. It is relevant here to extract the following principles relating to condonation of delay propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013)12 SCC 649 ): ''21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. ** * 21.8. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. ** * 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.” 13. Very recently, in H. Dohil Constructions Company Private Ltd. vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. and another (2015)1 SCC 680 ) while setting aside the order of the High Court condoning the delay of 1727 days caused in preferring the appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the principles laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) and in this context it had also referred to the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights). 14. Now, in the case before us, the writ petition was disposed of by the Writ Court as early as on 12.3.2009. However, the Writ Appeal has been preferred only on 28.10.2013. There is enormous delay of 1641 days. Filing a petition for modification of the order passed by the Writ Court or filing of a Review Petition are distinct from filing a Writ Appeal. The petitioner was not barred from filing the Writ Appeal. Further, the Writ Court has passed the order in the Review application on 10.7.2013. However, only on 29.10.2013 the writ appeal has been preferred. At every stage, there was delay. The petitioner was not barred from filing the Writ Appeal. Further, the Writ Court has passed the order in the Review application on 10.7.2013. However, only on 29.10.2013 the writ appeal has been preferred. At every stage, there was delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condoning petition also there is no proper reason for the enormous delay. It remains unexplained. 15. In this connection, in Esha Bhattacharjee (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court said: 'the increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters'. 16. When there is enormous delay and it remains unexplained and in the meanwhile certain rights, equity had been accrued to a party and a party has been assured of his position by the passage of long time, he cannot be vexed again. 17. In Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority (1990)1 LLN 457 (Mad) a Division Bench of this Court held that if a litigant chooses to approach the Court long after the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of law, he cannot say no prejudice would be caused to other side by the delay being condoned. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the stand of the petitioner that by condoning this huge delay no prejudice would be caused to the writ petitioner is untenable. 19. In view of the foregoings, we are not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner. 20. Thus, this petition is dismissed. W.A.SR.No.94919 of 2013 is closed. However, no costs.