MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other
This matter arises from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by the High Court. The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner dating back to 1960 and 1967 respectively, through a writ petition filed in 1975, alongside a belated review application against an earlier 1970 judgment. The core legal question concerned whether a constitutional petition suffering from an unexplained and inordinate delay and laches could be entertained by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and the review application was unexceptionable, given the prolonged and unexplained inaction of the petitioners in pursuing the matter. The ratio decidendi is that long and unexplained laches disentitles a party to discretionary constitutional remedies, and petitions filed after extensive delays without justification are liable to be dismissed.
- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay?
- Does an unexplained long period of inaction bar a party from seeking relief under writ jurisdiction?
- Can a belated review application against a long-standing High Court judgment be entertained without sufficient explanation for the delay?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--This order will dispose of two petitions being civil petition for special leave to Appeals Nos. 697 of 1976 and 698 of 1976.
2. The petitioners filed a constitutional petition being W.P. 148-R of 1975 against an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 15-10-1960 and the last order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 27-3-1967. The writ petition was filed in the year 1975 and the High Court dismissed it on 11-5-1976 on the ground that it suffered from laches and delay. The petitioner has filed C.P. 697 of 1976 against the aforesaid order of the High Court. From the date above given the order of the High Court suffers from no infirmity particularly when there is nothing on the present record to explain the long period during which the petitioners never moved in the matter. C. P. No. 697 of 1976 which arises is consequently dismissed.
3. It may be stated that earlier a constitutional petition being W.P. 111-R of 1970 was decided by the High Court in favour of the respondents on 25-7-197. The petitioners filed a Review Application bearing No. 19 of 1975 against it in' year 1975, which was also dismissed by the same common judgment passed in W.P. 148-R of 1975 mentioned above. The petitioners have now filed Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 698 of 1976 against it in this Court. The reasons given in the connected Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal 697 of 1976 hold good for this petition. The present petition is also dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Liaqat Ali Khan etc vs Chief Settlement Commissioner etc 2020 LHC 2031
- Liaqat Ali Khan and 10 others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member 2021 YLR 349
- QUETTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION through Administrator and another vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, BALOCHISTAN, DIRECTORATE OF LABOUR AND MANPOWER, QUETTA and 3 others 1995 PLC 151
- QUETTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS K.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 1