2011 SCMR 361 (PLP)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, PESHAWAR-Petitioner Versus ZABEEL PALACE HOTEL, PESHAWAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 361 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, PESHAWAR-Petitioner Versus ZABEEL PALACE HOTEL, PESHAWAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 361 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 361 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J., Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 361 (PLP) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE B, PESHAWAR-Petitioner Versus ZABEEL PALACE HOTEL, PESHAWAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both cases).
- Abdul Rauf Rohela, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in both cases).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 22-12-2005 passed by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 111 and 112 of 2000).
Art. 188
Review of Supreme Court judgment
Delay in filing review petition
Application for condonation of delay
Review petitions were barred by 128 days and applications for condonation of said delay were moved without assigning cogent reasons
Departmental authorities remained reluctant in pursuing legal remedy and ultimately time-barred proceedings were instituted without realizing that on account of such conduct of the individual, the Department and Public Exchequer in the case involving finances, had to suffer
Supreme Court observed that it was necessary for them to remain vigilant and not to allow the person responsible for the same without any departmental action
Application for condonation of delay having no substance, review petitions were dismissed with the direction to the concerned authorities to take action against the officers/officials responsible for not pursuing legal remedy diligently.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
These review petitions are barred by 128 days and applications have been moved but without assigning cogent reasons. In this behalf it may be noted that departmental authorities remain reluctant for one or the other reasons in pursuing legal remedy and ultimately time-barred proceedings were I instituted without realizing that on account of such conduct of the individual, the department and ultimately public exchequer in the cases involving finances have to suffer, therefore, it is necessary for them to remain vigilant and not to allow the persons responsible for the same without any departmental action. In the case of Chairman, District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum versus Abdul Khaliq through L.Rs. and others (PLD 2002 SC 436), such observations have been made. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereunder: "We are conscious that on declining relief either to the Government or public litigant in view of the provision of limitation, serious, injustice is caused to either of the parties before the Court but we cannot help it in view of the existing law. However, concerning the cases belonging to the Government/ autonomous bodies, at least one thing can be done that if case is decided against it on the question of limitation, the direction must be passed to the high-ups of the department so he/ they may initiate departmental action against those officers who are directly or indirectly responsible for causing delay in instituting the cases beyond period of limitation and even in absence of such directions, it would be duty of such officer to take action accordingly because if such unscrupulous persons are not proceeded against, ,they will have no fear of causing huge losses to the Government/autonomous functionaries at the cost of public exchequer because ultimately it is the public at large who suffers, being ultimate beneficiaries of the Government property".
2. Thus, for the reason that the application for condonation of delay has no substance, as noted herein above, we dismiss these review petitions with the direction to the concerned authorities to take actions against the officer/official responsible for not pursuing legal remedy diligently in view of the observation, noted hereinabove and send intimation to this Court for our perusal in Chambers within a period of three months. H.B.T./C-4/SC Petition dismissed.