DISTRICT HOUSING COMMITTEE, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the District Housing Committee against an order of the Lahore High Court with a delay of 76 days. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay on the ground that administrative time was consumed by the Secretary Housing in obtaining the necessary sanction from the Solicitor, Government of the Punjab. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether administrative delays in governmental decision-making constitute a valid ground for condonation of limitation. The Court held that the Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment regarding limitation periods. Furthermore, the Court clarified that even if a petitioner has a strong case on the merits, this does not per se constitute a valid ground for condoning delay. Finding no sufficient cause, the Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred.
- Is the Government entitled to preferential treatment over private litigants in matters of limitation?
- Does the time consumed by government departments in obtaining internal sanction to file an appeal constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Does a good case on the merits per se constitute a valid ground for the condonation of delay?
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, ACTG. C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order/ judgment dated 24-11-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court in W.P. No.13031 of 1997.
2. The petition is barred by 76 days. Delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that the Secretary Housing moved the Solicitor, Government of Punjab, for obtaining necessary sanction for which some time was consumed.
3. We are afraid, this does not constitute a valid ground for condo-nation of delay. The Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment in the matter of limitation.
' When faced with this, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on State v. Nazir Ahmed (1999 SCM R 610) to contend that depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, this Court is competent to condone the delay. There is no cavil with the proposition that this Court is not powerless to condone delay in appropriate cases. However, a good case on merits does not per se constitute a vailed ground for condo-nation of delay. This is not a fit case for condo-nation of delay.
' Resultantly, the petition is dismissed as time-barred and leave is declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.