P L D 1989 Supreme Court 627 (PLP)
DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1989 Supreme Court 627 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, |
| Parties | DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1989 Supreme Court 627 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1989 Supreme Court 627 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1989 Supreme Court 627 (PLP) (DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riazul Hassan Gilani, Deputy Attorney‑General with S. Inayat Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Nazir Ahmad Shami, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27‑12‑1988 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.5229 of 1979). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XIII, R.1 & O.XXX, R.6‑‑Petition for Leave to Appeal by Government barred by 101 days‑ Application for condonation of delay‑‑Conduct of lower functionaries of the Government, can, in appropriate cases, be taken as good ground for condonation of delay. In the petitions on behalf of the Government or Government functionaries in matters involving Government interest or public interest, the petitioners no doubt would be treated at par with ordinary citizens; but they would be given the same concessions and considerations as given to the other citizens. While examining the merits of application for condonation of delay the Supreme Court can look into the conduct of the subordinate functionaries on whose conduct the higher policy‑maker functionaries have only a remote physical control. Hence, the conduct of the lower functionaries can in appropriate cases be taken as a good ground for condonation of delay. In. the present case, prima facie, some of the lower functionaries, as explained in the application, seem to have misconducted in the matter of vigilance and preparation for filing of petition for leave to appeal. And further, as admitted at the Bar, departmental action is being taken against them in this behalf. This amongst others shows bona fides on Government's part. Case thus is a fit case for condonation of delay. Accordingly the application in that behalf was allowed and the. delay was condoned. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Case involved very valuable property, over crore of rupees and questions raised in support of the petition were also of public importance‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in the interest of the petitioners, respondents and also the public interest with observations that case be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents and case be fixed before winter vacations.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition is, prima facie, barred by 101 days. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on facts and circumstances narrated in detailed application (about 5 pages) for condonation of delay. We have heard the learned counsel for caveator in opposition to the request for condonation. It has recently been held by this Court that the petitions on behalf of the Government or Government functionaries in matters involving Government interest or public interest, the petitioners no doubt would be treated at par with ordinary citizen'; but they would be given the same concessions and considerations as given to the other citizens. It has also to be observed that while examining the merits of application for condonation of delay the Court can look into the conduct of the subordinate functionaries, on whose conduct the higher policy‑maker functionaries have only a remote physical control. Hence, the conduct of the lower functionaries can in appropriate cases be taken as a good ground for condonation of delay. In this A case, prima facie, some of the lower functionaries, as explained in the application, seem to have misconducted in the matter of vigilance and preparation for filing of petition for leave to appeal. And further, as admitted at the Bar, departmental action is being taken against them in this behalf. This amongst others shows bona fides on Government's part. We consider it a fit one for condonation of delay. Accordingly the application in that behalf is allowed and the delay is condoned. On merits, there is not much opposition from the caveator. The case involves very valuable property over crores of rupees and the questions raised in support of the petition are also of public importance. Learned counsel for the caveator in this behalf agitated that the respondents side has suffered due to long delay, therefore, this case needs expeditious finalisation. Keeping in view the interest of the petitioners, respondents and also the public interest we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents. It shall be fixed, if possible, before winter vacations. M. B. A./D‑49/S Leave granted