GOVERNMENT OF SINDH vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others
This matter concerns a review application filed by the Government of Sindh against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 8-7-1999. The core legal questions were whether the review application, filed with a delay of 103 days, should be condoned, and whether the non-implementation of the court's prior order by the petitioner-department warranted further action. The Court held that the application was time-barred, noting that the petitioner provided no valid justification for the delay, citing only internal financial problems and decision-making delays. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to implement the original order for nearly six months, erroneously assuming that filing a review application acted as an automatic stay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review application as time-barred and meritless. The Court emphasized the principle that a review application does not operate as an automatic stay of a court order, and that the deliberate failure to implement judicial directives may render officials liable for contempt of court, necessitating accountability for those responsible for such non-compliance.
- Does the filing of a review application operate as an automatic stay of the judgment under review?
- Can a delay in filing a review application be condoned on the grounds of internal departmental financial problems and decision-making delays?
- Does the failure to implement a court order for an extended period render officials liable for contempt of court?
ORDER
1. ' This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court dated 8-7-199. Neither Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General who had then appeared on behalf of the petitioner, has appeared to argue the review application nor the review application has been filed in time because it appears to be barred by 103 days as reported by the office. Mr. Munir-urRehman has no explanation to offer for such a long delay except for what has been stated in the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay. The said application indicates that review could not be fled in time because the petitioner-department has financial problems which resulted in delay in taking decision whether the review application should be filed or not. We asked the learned Additional Advocate-General whether the said order of this Court has been implemented but after seeking instructions, he very candidly admitted that the order has not yet been implemented. It is pertinent to point out that the said order was passed on 8-7-1999 and even after a lapse of nearly six months such order has not been implemented by the Department. The learned Additional Advocate-General perhaps thinks that filing of review operates as an automatic stay.
2. Consequently, the officials concerned prima facie appear to be guilty of contempt of Court for having failed to implement the order of this Court. We asked Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman to let us know their names so that proper action may be taken against them. However, the learned Additional Advocate-General has shown his ignorance about the same. Under the circumstances, the review is dismissed as time-barred and also for the reason that no ground for such review is made out from the application. The learned Additional Advocate General will make enquiry from the department and supply us names of the persons responsible for non-implementation of the order of this Court so that appropriate action under the law may be taken against them.
Cited by 4 cases
- FECTO BELARUS TRACTOR LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Finance Economic Affairs and others 2005 PTD 2286
- FECTO BELARUS TRACTOR LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Finance Economic Affairs 2005 PLD 605
- M/s. Fecto Belarus vs Government of Pakistan. Tractor Ltd PTCL 2005 CL. 754
- FECTO BELARUS TRACTOR LIMITED vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through M_O FINANCE ECONOMIC AFFAIRS and others 2006 PLJ SC 472