AZIZ AHMAD RATHORE vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Other
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner against an order of the Supreme Court dated 3-11-79, which refused leave to appeal to the opposite party. The petitioner sought review, claiming grievance regarding specific observations made in the concluding paragraph of that order. The petition was filed with a delay of 308 days, for which the petitioner offered the explanation that the original order was passed in his absence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had valid grounds for review and whether the delay could be condoned. The Court held that the grievance was misconceived, clarifying that when leave to appeal is refused, the underlying order remains intact, and any observations must be read consistently with that intactness. Furthermore, the Court established that a grievance regarding such directions only arises if the Government takes subsequent actions affecting terms and conditions that are legally impermissible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition on the grounds of being time-barred, affirming that the petitioner's concerns were premature and legally unfounded.
- Does the refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court render the underlying order intact?
- When does a cause of action arise for a petitioner aggrieved by observations made in an order refusing leave to appeal?
- Can a review petition be entertained when it is filed with a significant delay without sufficient justification?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks review of order dated 3-11-79 and his petition is barred by 308 days for which he has an explanation that the order was passed in his absence.
2. His grievance is confined to the concluding para of the order passed while refusing leave to appeal to the opposite party.
3. The grievance is misconceived for when leave to appeal is refused, the order appealed against is kept intact, and all observations made are to be read and understood consistently with the intactness of that order. Given that background the observations, without being mad the sole basis of that decision, would mean that the grievance of the petitioner then seeking leave would arise not on the giving of the direction but when Government takes steps which adversely affect his terms and conditions and are not permissible under the law.
The review petition is, therefore, dismissed also as the-barred.