P L D 1954 Federal Court 103 (PLP)

ABDUL RASHID, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal, preferred by the Crown, from a decision of the Chief Court of Sind releasing Hassan Nasir from detention on an appli cation in the nature of habeas corpus submitted by him to that Court. Hassan Nasir was detained in prison in pursuance of an order passed by the Central Government of Pakistan under section 3 of the Security of Pakistan Act (Act XXXI of 19 2). He was released on the 19th of August 1953 and the present petition against the order of release was presented to this Court on the 8th of December 1953. The petition was therefore barred by limitation by 75 days Order XLIV, rule 1, of the Federal Court Rules lays down that "All petitions and applications for special leave to appeal under the Privy Council (Abolition of Jurisdiction) Act, 1950, shall be lodged in the Court within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from: Provided that the Court may for sufficient cause extend the time." It was contended by the Advocate-General of Pakistan that rule 1 of O. XLIV, applies to petitions and applications present ed by convicts or other persons, but that this rule is inapplicable to petitions for special leave to appeal preferred by the Crown. He invited our attention to rule 2 of O. XLIV, which lays down that "on receipt of such petition or application, the Registrar shall cause notice to be given to the Advocate-General of Pakistan or of the Province concerned, as the case may require of the petition or application for special leave to appeal." The Advocate-General urged that as petitions on behalf of the Crown would normally be presented by the Advocate-General of Pakistan or of the Province concerned it was quite unnecessary to give a notice of such application to the Advocate-General, and that rule 2 was therfore inapplicable to applications presented on behalf of the Crown. As rule 2 contains the words "such petition or application" rule 1 can only apply to petitions and applications presented by convicts. In our opinion, this contention is wholly devoid of force. Rule 1 of O. XLI V, definitely states that all petitions and applications for special leave to appeal shall be lodged in the Court A within 30 days. Rule 2 makes provision for giving notice to the Advocate-General concerned whenever such a notice is necessary. Rule 2 cannot be taken to cut down the operation of rule

1. We, therefore, hold that this petition is barred by time by 75 days. It was submitted by the Advocate-General that there was sufficient cause in the present case for extending the time. He stated that the petition involved an important question of principle, and that the various departments of Government had to be consulted. In these circumstances, he prayed that the delay in presenting the petition be condoned. On enquiry, the Advocate-General informed us that he had submitted his opinion about the judgment of the Sind Chief Court to the Ministry of Law within a period of 30 days. We cannot see the slightest reason for the condonation of delay in this case. We accordingly dismiss this petition. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 100 as costs to the respondent. A. H. Petition dismissed.