JAMIL AKHTAR SIDDIQUI vs SECRETARY; EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had provided a sufficient explanation to justify the condonation of a five-day delay in filing the petition. The petitioner argued that he had waited for the Service Tribunal to send a certified copy of the impugned order by post, as per standard procedure, and only filed the petition after obtaining a copy himself. The Supreme Court rejected this explanation, noting that the petitioner had already obtained a certified copy of the impugned order on June 26, 1995, and therefore possessed the necessary documentation to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the Court held that the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and refused to condone it. The key principle laid down is that a party who has already obtained a certified copy of an impugned order cannot rely on the failure of a tribunal to send a copy by post to excuse a failure to file an appeal within the statutory limitation period.
- Can a petitioner seek condonation of delay based on the non-receipt of a certified copy by post if they have already obtained a certified copy independently?
- Is a delay of five days in filing a petition for leave to appeal sufficient grounds for dismissal if the explanation for the delay is unsatisfactory?
1. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is barred by five days. Learned counsel submiti 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 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 as the-barred.