MOULA BUX LEGHARI vs ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL (AIGP)
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service matter concerning a dispute over the petitioner's date of birth, which had previously been adjudicated by a service tribunal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to re-examine factual determinations made by the lower tribunal. The Supreme Court held that its jurisdiction is strictly limited to addressing substantial questions of law of public importance and does not extend to the determination of controverted questions of fact. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petition was time-barred and lacked any reasonable explanation to justify the condonation of the delay. The petition was dismissed on both the merits regarding the scope of the Court's jurisdiction and the procedural ground of limitation. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not act as a forum for re-evaluating factual findings in service matters unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to determine controverted questions of fact in service matters?
- Is the Supreme Court's jurisdiction restricted to substantial questions of law of public importance?
- Can a petition be dismissed if it is barred by time and lacks a reasonable explanation for delay?
ORDER
1. KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- The controversy about the petitioner's date of birth stands resolved by the learned Tribunal. The jurisdiction of this Court is restricted only to substantial questions of law of public importance and not determination of controverted questions of fact. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is even otherwise barred by time and no reasonable explanation exists justifying condonation of the said delay. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. .