Pakistan Case Law
1989 PLD Supreme Court 627

DEPUTY COLLECTOR. OF CUSTOMS and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD TAI R and anot er s

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 PLD Supreme Court 627
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,657 n 1989,
Date1989-06-17
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Syed Usman Ali Shah
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed with a delay of 101 days. The petitioners, representing Government functionaries, sought condonation of delay on the grounds of misconduct and lack of vigilance by subordinate officials, against whom departmental action was being initiated. The core legal question was whether the negligence or misconduct of lower-level government functionaries can constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal involving public interest. The Supreme Court held that while Government functionaries are treated at par with ordinary citizens, the court can examine the conduct of subordinate functionaries over whom higher policy-makers have remote control. The Court determined that the misconduct of lower functionaries, coupled with the Government's bona fide action against them, constituted a fit ground for condonation. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal due to the public importance of the questions raised and the high value of the property involved.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the misconduct or lack of vigilance of subordinate government functionaries constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
  • How should the courts balance the requirement of treating government functionaries at par with ordinary citizens against the practical realities of administrative control when deciding applications for condonation of delay?
  • Does the initiation of departmental action against negligent lower-level officials demonstrate bona fides sufficient to support an application for condonation of delay?
condonation of delaylimitationgovernment functionariessubordinate misconductleave to appealpublic interest

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition is, prima facie, barred by 101 days. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on facts and circumtances narrated in detailed application (about 5 pages) for condonation of delay. We have heard the learned counsel for caveator in opposition to the request for condonation.

2. 'It has recently been held by this Court that the petitions on behalf of the Government or Government functionaries in matters involving Government interest or public interest, the petitioners no doubt would be treated at par with ordinary citizens; but they would be given the same concessions and considerations as given to the other citizens. It has also to be observed that while examining the merits of application for condonation of delay the Court can look into the conduct of the subordinate functionaries, on whose conduct the higher policy-maker functionaries have only a remote physical control. Hence, the conduct of the lower functionaries can in appropriate cases be taken as a good ground for condonation of delay. In this case, prima facie, some of the lower functionaries, as explained in the application, seem to have misconducted in the matter of vigilance and preparation for filing of petition for leave to appeal. And further, as admitted at the Bar, departmental action is being taken against them in this behalf. This amongst others shows bona fides on Government's part. We consider it a fit one for condonation of delay.

3. Accordingly the application in that behalf is allowed and the delay is condoned.

4. ' On merits, there is not much opposition from the caveator. The case involves very valuable property over crorer of rupees and the questions raised in support of the petition are also of public importance. Learned counsel for the caveator in this behalf agitated that the respondents side has suffered due to long delay, therefore, this case needs expeditious finalisation.

5. ' Keeping in view the interest of the petitioners, respondents and also the public interest we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents. It shall be fixed, if possible, before winter vacations.

Cited by 13 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.