ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS (LAHORE DIVISION) Versus SKY ROOM LIMITED

ORDER

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J .‑‑1. This petition is time‑barred by 128 days. It is submitted in support of the prayer for the condonation of the delay as follows:

"The petitioner could not prefer the appeal in time for the reason that he had to submit the case papers to the Collector who had to send the same to the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue took a decision that the petitioner should file a petition for leave to Appeal. Under the Rules of Business of the Federal Government, the permission of the law Ministry was necessary and the case went there and the necessary sanction was given.

The file came back to the Central Board of Revenue who in turn sent it to the Collector of Central Excise from where papers came back to the petitioner and also went to the Advocate on Record. In this process a lot of time was consumed and the petition has become time‑barred.

The petitioner was neither negligent nor wasted any time in any manner. The delay is due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. "

2. The question whether the period said to have been spent by the various agencies of the Government for examination of the case with a view to decide whether the appeal should be filed or not has received consideration of this Court in several cases. In "Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darji and others 1970 S C M R 558" it, was observed that the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from any ordinary litigant, because of the fact that the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and the conduct of their cases and its resources are larger. If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirements of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law changed and not to seek the Court to give a different interpretation to its provisions. Moreover, it is well settled that while requesting for condonation of delay each day of limitation has to be properly and sufficiently explained. In this behalf in "Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Pir Ahmad Khan, 1981 S C M R 37" it was observed as follows:

"We may again clarify that according to the law each day of limitation must properly and satisfactorily be explained and the excuse that the matter got delayed because of its having remained under examination at different departmental levels is never a valid ground for extension of period of limitation and does not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It is a matter of regret that despite this position being repeatedly clarified by this Court and the High Courts the Government Departments with all their resources continue to delay the filing of the cases in time with loss to the Government and the public interest. It is high time that the Government Departments so organize their business that legal eases are not unnecessarily delayed and are instituted in Court within the time limited for such matters."

3. In the present case, petitioner has not even cared to explain in details with regard to the dates why the delay of each day could not be avoided. In the circumstances, there in no option left but to dismiss this petition as barred by time. Order accordingly.

S.Q. /A‑219/S Petition dismissed.