GOVERNMENT OF SINDH vs Dr. ABRAR ALI SHEIKH
This matter arises from a petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the Government of Sindh against Dr. Abrar Ali Sheikh, which was delayed by ten days. The core legal question was whether the time spent in government offices processing a file for the purpose of initiating legal remedies constitutes a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The Court held that bureaucratic delays within government offices do not provide a valid nexus to explain the entire period of delay by metes and bounds, and consequently dismissed the petition as barred by time. The key principle laid down is that routine administrative delays and internal governmental file movements do not furnish a sufficient or legally acceptable justification for condoning delay in filing legal proceedings without a proper day-to-day explanation of the elapsed time.
- Does the time spent in government offices finalising a matter constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Must an application for condonation of delay explain the entire period of delay by metes and bounds?
- What is the consequence of failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing a petition?
- Order XXXIII Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
' This petition is barred by 10 days and the ground taken vide memo. Of application under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for condonation of delay is that the matter was within time upto 8-8-2000 and as the petition has been filed on 1-8-2000 the same is within time.
"If any delay caused in the filing of the above petition, the same may be condoned in the larger interest of justice, equity and good conscience".
We have heard the learned Law Officer who has frankly conceded that there is delay but the time spent in the Government office with a view to finalising any matter for purposes of taking in hand of the future remedy does case some delay and that the delay is not deliberate.
2. We are afraid the delay in filing of the petition in the circumstances as detailed in para. 3 of the memo. Of application under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules has got no nexus whatsoever with any explanation of the entire period by metes and bounds. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed as barred by time.