Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1039 of 1980, decided on 20th December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 24-3-1980 of the Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 15 (L)/80).

--- Art. 212(3)-Leave to appeal-Condonation of delay-Contention that petitioners diligently pursued matter in writ petition before High Court, delay in challenging order of Service Tribunal before Supreme Court, liable to be excused-Article 212(3) of Constitution, however, Providing that order of Service Tribunal must be challenged before Supreme Court-Time spent by petitioners before High Court in Pursuing remedy in writ petition, held, cannot be regarded as time spent bona fide in pursuing case in wrong forum

J. V. Gardner, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents. .

Date of hearing : 20th December, 1980.

.-According to the office note this petition is barred by 66 days. In excuse of the delay it is submitted that the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, impugned before this Court, was passed on 24-3-1980 and the petitioner challenged the same on 19-7-1980. In the intervening period, a writ petition was filed before the Lahore High Court (W. P. No. 5149/S-80) which was dismissed on 4-6-1980. The submission is that as the petitioner was diligently pursuing his case, the delay was liable to be excused. We do not find any force in this explanation. The provisions of Article A 212(3) of the Constitution are quite clear and provide that the order of the Service Tribunal must be challenged before the Supreme Court and, therefore, the time spent before the High Court in pursuing the remedy of the writ petition .cannot be regarded as time spent bona fide in pursuing the case in wrong forum.

There is, thus, no ground for condonation of delay .

This petition is dismissed as barred by time.

Leave petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.