ABDUL KHALIQ CHAUDHRY, SUB ENGINEER vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, filed 81 days after the decision, exceeding the 60-day limitation period by 21 days. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to condonation of delay based on the time taken to receive notice of the order and the time spent obtaining a certified copy. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner was entitled to credit for the period between the announcement of the order and its intimation, he was not entitled to credit for the 15-day period between applying for and collecting the copy. Evidence showed the copy was ready on the day of application, and the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in collection. The Court established the principle that a litigant cannot claim the benefit of time spent obtaining a copy if they were negligent in collecting it once it was ready, particularly when the established practice of the tribunal is to prepare copies promptly and inform applicants.
- Is a petitioner entitled to exclude the time taken to collect a certified copy from the limitation period if the copy was ready for collection on the day of application?
- Does the failure to collect a ready certified copy from a tribunal constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
- Is the period between the announcement of an order and its intimation to a party excludable when computing the limitation period for filing an appeal?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal is barred by time. The Tribunal announced its decision on 21-7-1983. This petition was filed on 10-10-1983, that is, after 81 days. The prescribed period for filing the petition is 60 days. Thus, there is a delay of 21 days which the petitioner is required to explain. He states that the Tribunal sent information to him about its order by post, which he received on 30-7-1983. He applied for a copy of the order on 1-8-1983. It was delivered to him on 15-8-1983. The learned counsel states that if the petitioner is given allowance for the time the Tribunal took in intimating its order to him and that which he spent in obtaining a copy thereof, which in all comes to 25 days, his petition will be within time.
2. So far as the period between the announcement of the order and its intimation to the petitioner is concerned, he is clearly entitled to its credit in computing limitation. It comes to 10 days. As regards the period which elapsed between the making of an application for the supply of copy and the delivery of the copy the position is different. It will appear from the stamp affixed on the certified copy by the copying branch of the Tribunal that the copy was applied for on 1-8-1983 and it was ready for delivery on the same day. There is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner did not care to collect it on the same or the following day but instead waited for 15 days for the purpose. All that the learned counsel could say in this regard is that the copying branch had not intimated to him the day when the copy would be ready for delivery. We called the Registrar and the clerk concerned from the Tribunal. The Registrar stated that the copies were prepared on the very day they were applied for and the applicants were informed accordingly. That being the practice in the Tribunal, the petitioner showed carelessness in not collecting the copy for 15 days. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had approached the Tribunal for obtaining the copy at any time between 1-8-1983 and 15-8-1983. In the circumstances no case for condo nation of delay has been made out. We would accordingly dismiss this petition as barred by time.
Cited by 1 case
- OASIM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 1990 CLC 1495