Find a Lawyer

ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, G.H.Q. versus ABDUL KHALIQ SIDDIQUI

Article 212 ()) At the hearing of the petition for postponement of the appeal for the delay limitation, the applicant alleged that no copy of the decision had been sent to him directly and, through his own personal efforts, he was almost through 5. Was able to get a copy months later. The petition was filed 26 days after the receipt of a copy of the decision, which was submitted petition The petitioner could not be accepted for extraordinary delay in filing the petition as the applicant was legally sent. Was made and not to the applicant as it would be against. The Service Tribunal's well-defined practice and procedures even otherwise, the forwarding letter clearly showed that the copy of the decision passed was fully endorsed with the applicant, in any case On occasion, the applicant should have been careful to request a copy and not wait. After collecting a copy from the tribunal petition after five months and 26 waste days of waste again, there is hopelessly time restriction and there is no reason to say that the aggravating reason for the apology is stated. Delay in favor of the petitioner, discretion which could not be exercised, which had shown extreme negligence and negligence in the treatment before the Supreme Court's request for extension of employment, was rejected and the application dismissed. r \ n famous high court advocate from Karachi lawyer