2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, G.H.Q. and another Versus ABDUL KHALIQ SIDDIQUI
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, G.H.Q. and another Versus ABDUL KHALIQ SIDDIQUI |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, G.H.Q. and another Versus ABDUL KHALIQ SIDDIQUI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Deputy Attorney-General for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, dated 22-12-2005 passed in Appeal No.405(K)(C.S.) of 2002).
Art. 212(3)
Petitioner in his application for condonation of delay had alleged that no copy of the judgment was directly sent to him and through his personal efforts he was able to obtain copy after about 5 months of its announcement, whereas petition was filed after 26 days of obtaining copy of judgment
Explanation offered by petitioner for inordinate delay in filing petition could not be accepted because same was duly forwarded to the other petitioner and not to the petitioner as it would be against the well-settled practice and procedure of the Service Tribunal
Even otherwise, forwarding letter had clearly shown that copy of impugned judgment had been duly endorsed to the petitioner
At any event, petitioner should have been diligent in asking for a copy and not to wait for five months and again to waste 26 days after collection of copy from the Tribunal
Petition being hopelessly barred by time and there being no sufficient cause to condone said delay, discretion could not be exercised in favour of petitioner, who had been highly negligent and careless in pursuing remedy before Supreme Court
Prayer of petitioner for extension of time, was rejected and petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
At the very outset, this petition is barred by 52 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is admitted that judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) was announced on 22-12-2005 and office of the Tribunal forwarded a copy thereof to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, who was respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. It is alleged that no copy of the judgment was directly sent to petitioner No.1 and through personal efforts such petitioner was able to obtain copy of the judgment only on 15-5-2006 whereas C.P.L.A. was filed in office on 5-6-2006.
2. We are least convinced with the explanation offered for the inordinate delay. We are not inclined to accept that copy of the judgment was duly forwarded to petitioner No.2 and not to petitioner No.1, as it would be against the well-settled practice and procedure of the Tribunal. Even otherwise, copy of the forwarding letter produced by the petitioners clearly tends to show that copy has been duly endorsed to petitioner No.1. At any event, petitioner No.1 should have been diligent in asking for a copy and not to wait for five months and again to waste 26 days after the collection of copy from the Tribunal.
3. Be that as it may, petition being hopelessly barred by time and there being no sufficient cause, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners, who have been completely negligent and careless in pursuing their remedy before this Court.
4. Prayer for extension of time is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./E-1/SC Petition dismissed.