1984 SCMR 1288

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs Rao FAZAL KHAN AKHT AR and another

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1984 SCMR 1288

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition No,676-R of 1983 Appeal No,97(R) of 1980

Date1984-04-29

Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H.Quraishi

ResultPetition dismissed

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Federation of Pakistan, challenging a decision of a Tribunal, with a delay of 31 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, citing that the Government was occupied with other matters requiring immediate attention, which caused the delay in deciding whether to file the appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether this explanation constituted sufficient grounds for condonation. The Court held that the Government had a clear period of 60 days to make a decision regarding the appeal, especially if the matter involved public importance. The Court determined that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 31-day delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as being barred by time, reaffirming the principle that administrative preoccupation does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when statutory limitation periods are provided.

Questions settled in this judgment

Does administrative preoccupation or the need to attend to other matters constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
Is a petition liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to explain the delay in filing?

limitationcondonation of delaytime-barred petitionsufficient causegovernment litigation

ORDER

1. Muhammad Haleem, C.J.-- This petition is barred by 31 days. An application has been filed for the condonation of delay, and therein what is stated is that the Government was attending to matters needing immediate attention, and for this reason this matter remained pending for consideration as to whether an appeal should be filed. This cannot at all be a reason for the condonation of delay when the Government had 60 clear days to take a decision for the filing of the appeal if the point decided by the Tribunal was of some public importance as contended by the learned Deputy Attorney-General. Accordingly, there was failure on the part of the petitioner to explain the delay of 31 days and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, which we do so as being barred by time.