2012 PLP 406 (SCMR)

ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.

As per office note, this petition for leave to appeal is barred by 92 days. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay has been moved by the petitioner on the ground that time consumed by the petitioner in availing the remedy of ICA before the High Court and thereafter filing of earlier C.P.L.A No.1650 of 2010 before the Apex Court, against the impugned judgment dated 31-5-2010 in Writ Petition No.1836 of 2010, may be excluded.

2. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner on this point and carefully perused the material placed on record, which reveals that on merits dispute involved in this petition relates to approval of building plan submitted by respondent or otherwise, by the petitioner regarding which earlier Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in its judgment dated 20-1-2009, in Writ Petition No.1400 of 2009 had issued following directions. "

3. It is directed that on receipt of the requisite fee the application for sanction of the plan submitted by the petitioner may be processed and the same be decided within the statutory period."

3. It was on failure of the petitioner to comply with such directions of the High Court that the respondent had to again approached the High Court through another Writ Petition No.1836 dated 3-5-2010, which ended in the passing of impugned judgment in favour of respondents with specific reference to the language of Paragraph 27(6) of the Sixth Schedule to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001.

4. Admittedly, under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, the remedy against such judgment of the High Court was through a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before this Court, but instead of doing so, the petitioner followed the remedy filing I.C.A. No.113 of 2010 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench and upon its dismissal on the point of maintainability vide order dated 16-6-2010, thereafter filed C.P.L.A No.1650 of 2010 before this Court, which too was dismissed on 28-9-2010. There is no material available on record to show that the futile exercise of such litigation undertaken by the petitioner was bona fide. Moreso, in the circumstances when throughout conduct of the officials of the petitioner was found shabby, inasmuch as they failed to fulfil their statutory obligation as regards approval or rejection of the building plans submitted by the respondent within the statutory period, even after the above reproduced direction of Lahore High Court, which was binding on them.

5. Be that as it may, upon careful perusal of case record, we are satisfied that no valid reason for condonation of such inordinate delay is furnished by the petitioner, therefore, they are not entitled for condonation of delay on account of some ill advised litigation before the wrong forum. This view of the matter is fortified with the judgments reported as Sadiq Mohy-ud-Din v. Secretary, District Allotment Committee (1981 SCMR 817), Noor Muhammad v. Assistant Commissioner (1986 SCMR 292) and Hajran Khatoon v. Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab (1987 SCMR 1153).

6. Upshot of the above discussion is that application for condonation of delay so also this petition for leave to appeal are dismissed, being barred by time. S.A.K./T-12/SC Petition dismissed.