MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs WAPDA AND Another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 24 March 1980, which was filed with a delay of 66 days. The core legal question is whether the time spent pursuing a mistaken remedy through a writ petition before the High Court can constitute a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that because Article 212(3) explicitly requires orders of the Service Tribunal to be challenged directly before the Supreme Court, time spent pursuing a writ petition in the High Court cannot be regarded as time spent bona fide in a wrong forum. Consequently, the Court ruled that there was no valid ground for condoning the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that mistaken recourse to the High Court in matters falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court under Article 212 does not afford a basis for condonation of delay.
- Whether time spent pursuing a writ petition in the High Court against a Service Tribunal order can be excluded for the purpose of limitation under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the mistaken filing of a constitutional petition in the High Court constitute a bona fide pursuit of a remedy in a wrong forum for condonation of delay?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. NASSIM HASAN SHAH, J.-According to the office note this petition is barred by 66 days. In excuse of the delay it is submitted that the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, impugned before this Court, was passed on 24-3-1980 and the petitioner challenged the same on 19-7-1980. In the intervening period, a writ petition was filed before the Lahore High Court (W. P. No. 5149/S-80) which was dismissed on 4-6-1980. The submission is that as the petitioner was diligently pursuing his case, the delay was liable to be excused. We do not find any force in this explanation. The provisions of Article A 212(3) of the Constitution are quite clear and provide that the order of the Service Tribunal must be challenged before the Supreme Court and, therefore, the time spent before the High Court in pursuing the remedy of the writpetition .Cannot be regarded as time spent bona fide in pursuing the case in wrong forum.
2. There is, thus, no ground for condonation of delay .
3. This petition is dismissed as barred by time.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD JAFAR vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS 1983 PLD Peshawar 134