JAMIL AKHTAR SIDDIQUI vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE ,
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of the Service Tribunal. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner had provided a sufficient explanation to justify condoning a five-day delay in filing the petition. The petitioner argued that he had waited for a certified copy of the impugned order to be sent by the Service Tribunal's office, as per standard procedure, rather than relying on the copy he had personally obtained on 26-6-1995. The Supreme Court rejected this explanation, holding that since the petitioner was already in possession of a certified copy of the impugned order as of 26-6-1995, he possessed the necessary documentation to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay, establishing the principle that a party cannot excuse a failure to file an appeal within the limitation period by claiming reliance on the administrative dispatch of documents when they already possess the required certified copy to proceed.
- Can a petitioner justify a delay in filing an appeal by claiming they were waiting for an official copy of an order when they already possessed a certified copy?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal where the petitioner had the means to file within time?
1. ' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is barred by five days. Learned counsel submits that under the procedure rules of the Service Tribunal, copies of the orders are supplied to the parties free of cost through post but in the instant case, certified copy of the impugned order was not sent by the office of the Service Tribunal to the petitioner and he himself applied for certified copy of the impugned order of the Service Tribunal which was supplied to him on 26-6- 1995. Petitioner thereafter, waited for the certified copy of the impugned order which was to be sent by the office of the Tribunal but that was never received. He then filed the petition in this Court and appended therewith certified copy of the order which he had himself obtained. Learned counsel does not deny that the A petition filed in this Court is barred by five days. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. He having obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 26-6-1995 could and should have filed the petition for leave to appeal in this Court within time which he failed to do. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay and dismiss the leave petition was time-barred.