PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education vs KISHWAR QUDUS

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-8-2002 in F.A.O. N,o.137 of 2000 (Province of Punjab through Secretary Education v. Kishwar Qudus Paul) passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the said appeal was dismissed with modification that whatever rent was received by the respondent would be adjusted by the petitioner from the amount of compensation awarded.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent made an application under section 6 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, for enhacement of compensation for use and occupation of requisitioned r propertyNo,XIX-50-S-35, Nadeem Shaheed Road, Samanabad, Lahore, comprising of six rooms, courtyard, etc. Owned by the respondent which was allowed by the District Judge in the capacity of the Arbitrator as per judgment dated 11-4-2000 and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month from 1977 to 1980, at the rate of Rs,2,500 per month from 1981 to 1985, at the rate of Rs,3,000 per month from 1986 to 1990, at the rate of Rs,3,800 per month from 1991 to 1993 and at the rate of Rs,5,000 per month since 1994 onward and the compensation was to be paid by the petitioner from the date of requisition. The petitioner preferred First Appeal from Order No,137 of 2000 which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.

3. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab for the petitioner on the point of limitation as this petition is barred by fourteen days which plea is raised by learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner in delay condonation application has stated that impugned judgment was obtained on 21st August, 2002 and the solicitor to the Government of Punjab intimated about sanction and approval and directed to file the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal on 15-8-2002. In response to above letter the Advocate-General asked the Executive District Officer (Education) to provide certified copies of the counsel was nominated to file the petition, who was provided the file to draft the C.P.L.A., therefore, the delay has occasioned in filing the petition which was neither deliberate nor wilful.

4. This Court has time and again held that delay taking place in the Government offices in the process of filing petitions, could not be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In the instant case there is delay of fourteen days in filing the petition for leave to appeal and each day's delay has not been satisfactorily accounted for. It was bounden duty of the petitioner to have pursued the matter for the purpose of filing the petition as soon as the judgment was passed on 9- 8-2002. The petitioner cannot be allowed to place blame upon his subordinate officers who though were also equally responsible to expedite the process of filing the petition within time. It must be noted that delay in filing petition has created vested right in favour of respondent which cannot be lightly ignored unless strong case is made out showing sufficient cause accounting each day's delay. But in the instant case no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay of fourteen days therefore, this petition is dismissed as time-barred.