2000 PLP 1241 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1241 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF SINDH — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1241 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1241 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1241 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF SINDH — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Munir-ur-Rehman, Additional Advocate-General and Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- 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-ur Rehman 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. 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.
Judgment & Decree
Art. 204
Order of Supreme Court had not been implemented by Government even after lapse of six months
Officials concerned prima facie appeared to be guilty of contempt of Court for having failed to implement the order of Supreme Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 188
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Time-barred
Condonation of delay was sought on the ground that due to financial problems Government could not file review application in time
Despite lapse of six months Government failed to implement order of Supreme Court
Effect
Delay was not condoned
Petition was time-barred and also no ground for review was made out from the application
Review application was dismissed in circumstances. Munir-ur-Rehman, Additional Advocate-General and Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Respondents in person. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1999 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-ur Rehman 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. 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. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G-10/S Application dismissed.