JAMIL AKHTAR SIDDIQUI vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB; LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Service Tribunal, which was found to be barred by five days. The core legal question concerns whether the delay in filing the petition should be condoned based on the petitioner's explanation regarding the procurement of a certified copy of the impugned order. The Supreme Court held that the explanation provided by the petitioner was unsatisfactory, as the petitioner had already obtained a certified copy on a specific date and failed to file the petition within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the leave petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that vague or unconvincing explanations for delay in filing appeals or petitions, especially where the party was already in possession of the requisite certified copy, do not warrant the condonation of delay.
- Whether delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned based on an unsatisfactory explanation regarding certified copies?
- Does the failure to receive a free copy of an order through post justify the delay when the party has already obtained a certified copy independently?
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 f 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 officer 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 cop 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 P 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 the which he failed to do. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay and dismiss the leave petition was the-barred.