COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, PESHAWAR vs ZABEEL PALACE HOTEL, PESHAWAR
This matter concerns review petitions filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone B, Peshawar, which were submitted with a delay of 128 days. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the petitions could be condoned despite the lack of cogent reasons provided by the departmental authorities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the application for condonation of delay lacked substance and consequently dismissed the review petitions as time-barred. The Court emphasized the necessity for government and autonomous bodies to remain vigilant in pursuing legal remedies to protect the public exchequer. It laid down the principle that when litigation involving public finances is dismissed due to limitation, the concerned authorities must initiate departmental action against the officers or officials responsible for the negligence and delay. The Court further directed that such departmental actions be initiated and an intimation of the same be submitted to the Court within three months.
- Can review petitions be entertained when they are filed with a significant delay without cogent reasons?
- What is the duty of government departments regarding the timely pursuit of legal remedies to protect the public exchequer?
- Should departmental action be initiated against officers responsible for causing delays in legal proceedings involving public funds?
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---These review petitions are barred by 128 days and applications have been moved but without assigning cogent reasons. In this behalf it may be noted that departmental authorities remain reluctant for one or the other reasons in pursuing legal remedy and ultimately time-barred proceedings were instituted without realizing that on account of such conduct of the individual, the department and ultimately public exchequer in the cases involving finances have to suffer, therefore, it is necessary for them to remain vigilant and not to allow the persons responsible for the same without any departmental action. In the case of Chairman, District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum versus Abdul Khaliq through L. Rs, and others (PLD 2002 SC 436),, such observations have been made. Relevant pars therefrom is reproduced hereunder:- "We are conscious that on declining relief either to the Government or public litigant in view of the provision of limitation, serious, injustice is caused to either of the parties before the Court but we cannot help it in view of the existing law. However, concerning the cases belonging to the Government/ autonomous bodies, at least one thing can be done that if case is decided against it on the question of limitation, the direction must be passed to the high-ups of the department so he/ they may initiate departmental action against those officers who are directly or indirectly responsible for causing delay in instituting the cases beyond period of limitation and even in absence of such directions, it would be duty of such officer to take action accordingly because if such unscrupulous persons are not proceeded against, they will have no fear of causing huge losses to the Government/autonomous functionaries at the cost of public exchequer because ultimately it is the public at large who suffers, being ultimate beneficiaries of the Government property".
2. Thus, for the reason that the application for condonation of delay has no substance, as noted herein above, we dismiss these review petitions with the direction to the concerned authorities to take actions against the officer/official responsible for not pursuing legal remedy diligently in view of the observation, noted hereinabove and send intimation to this Court for our perusal in Chambers within a period of three months.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABBOTTABAD and 4 others vs BANARAS KHAN and 10 others 2019 CLC 955
- Land Acquisition Collector, NHA Abbottabad and 4 others vs Banaras Khan 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1328