SECRETARY, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and otherss vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ and otherss
This matter concerns two civil petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, both of which were submitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the grounds presented by the petitioners—namely, the administrative restructuring resulting from the devolution of power plan and general unavoidable administrative circumstances—constituted sufficient cause to justify the condonation of delay and the extension of time for filing. The Supreme Court held that neither the abolition of the Commissioner's office nor vague administrative delays in processing files with counsel provided a valid or reasonable basis for extending the limitation period. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications for extension of time and, by extension, dismissed the main petitions as time-barred. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative inconvenience or internal departmental restructuring does not automatically constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under the rules governing the filing of petitions before the Supreme Court.
- Does the abolition of a government office due to a devolution of power plan constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition?
- Are administrative reasons or delays in placing a file with counsel sufficient grounds for extending the limitation period for filing a petition?
- Can a petition be entertained by the Supreme Court if it is filed beyond the period of limitation without a valid and reasonable justification?
- Supreme Court Rules, 1980
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide both these petitions involving identical questions of facts and law.
2. C.P. No,967-L of 2002 is barred by 143 days. An application has been made for extension of time under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 on the ground that on account of implementation of the devolution of power plan, the office of the Commissioner at Divisional level was abolished, therefore, the petition could not be filed within the period of limitation.
3. We are afraid, if this could be a ground muchless sufficient ground for extension of time, for Commissioner in matter of filing a petition before this Court with reference to its subject-matter had no say.
4. The connected C.P. No,3543-L of 2001 is barred by 8 days. In the application made for extension of time, the only reason given is that for certain unavoidable circumstances and administrative reasons, the petitioner had not been able to place the file in the office of its counsel well within time which is regretted.
5. In our view, this too is not a ground muchless reasonable ground for extension of time.
6. The applications moved in both the petitions for extension of time are hereby dismissed, consequently the main petitions are also dismissed as barred by time and .