HASSAN JAMIL vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others
This matter involves two petitions challenging the inaction of the Capital Development Authority regarding alleged applications submitted by the petitioners. The core legal question is whether the petitioners established a factual basis for their claim of administrative inaction, given the significant delay in seeking redress and the lack of evidence regarding the submission of the applications. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' claims were unsubstantiated and "airy fairy," noting that the petitioners failed to produce the impugned orders or satisfactory evidence that applications were ever submitted. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners waited 13 to 14 years before complaining about the alleged inaction, and that their initial complaint was directed to the Prime Minister, who was not the statutory authority empowered to address the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions as frivolous and misconceived, emphasizing that a party seeking relief against administrative inaction must provide credible evidence of both the submission of their request and the subsequent failure of the relevant authority to act within a reasonable timeframe.
- Can a petitioner maintain a claim of administrative inaction without providing evidence of the submission of the underlying application?
- Does a delay of over a decade in challenging alleged administrative inaction render a petition frivolous?
- Is a complaint to a non-statutory authority sufficient to establish a cause of action against a statutory body for inaction?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J. ---This order will dispose of the above two petitions as the orders of the High Court, which are impugned therein are in identical terms.
2. ' The story narrated by the petitioners is entirely airy fairy.
3. The impugned orders of the departmental authorities have not been filed. In response to this objection, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no orders as no action has ever been taken on the applications of the petitioners and that it is this inaction which is the basis of his complaint. But, unfortunately, he has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to show that he had indeed submitted any application on which some action had to be taken. His averment that he had submitted the applications sometimes in 1975/1976 which have remained undisposed of until today becomes highly doubtful when he found that he complained of this inaction only in 1989. Some 13/14 years after the submission of the application and that too to the Prime Minister who was not the statutory authority directly empowered to deal with the matter.
4. ' These petitions are frivolous and misconceived.