Civil Aviation Authority through its Director General and 3 others vs Mir
This civil appeal challenges a High Court order that directed the Civil Aviation Authority to regularize the service of the respondent, who had been appointed on a contingency basis in 1995 and subsequently de-hired in 2001 due to illness. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent despite a significant delay in approaching the court. The Supreme Court held that the respondent filed his petition in 2011, approximately ten years after his services were terminated, without providing any justification or explanation for this substantial delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition suffered from laches and should have been dismissed by the High Court on that ground alone. The Court set aside the impugned High Court order, emphasizing that unexplained, inordinate delay in initiating legal proceedings precludes the grant of relief in constitutional jurisdiction.
- Can a constitutional petition be entertained when it is filed after an unexplained delay of ten years?
- Does the doctrine of laches apply to petitions seeking regularization of service?
- Is a high court order granting relief sustainable when the underlying petition suffers from inordinate delay?
ORDER
1. MAQBOOL BAQAR, J. --- Through the above Civil Appeal, the appellant authority has challenged the Order dated 06.11.2012 of a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, in terms whereof the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed, with direction to the appellant to regularize the service of the petitioner/respondent No. 1 from the date when he completed 5 years of his service.
2. The respondent No. 1, who was on 28.06.1995 appointed on contingency continued to serve as such, for more than 5 years, however, on 31.7.2001 he was admitted in a hospital due to Urinary Retraction Numbness of lower limps, and was on account of his illness, "de-hired" with effect from 31.12.2001.
3. Unfortunately it took the respondent No. 1 about 10 years in approaching the High Court, as the petition decided through the impugned order was so filed in the year 2011 only, and as rightly submitted by the Additional Attorney General the same suffered from latches and ought to have been dismissed for having been filed after a lapse of about 10 years.
4. The respondent No. 1, who appeared in person, despite opportunity failed to explain or justify the delay. Since the petition was filed after a lapse of almost 10 years and that too without any justification or explanation for such delay, the same ought to have been dismissed as such.
5. However through the impugned order the petition was instead allowed, which order, on account of the above noted delay in filing of the petition, is not sustainable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is accordingly set aside.