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, while the explanation offered by the applicants for the unusual delay in filing the application could not be accepted as it was legally sent to the applicants. Was made and not to the applicant. The Service Tribunal's well-practiced and procedures even otherwise, the forwarding letter clearly indicated that the copy of the anonymous decision was fully endorsed with the applicant, at any point However, the applicant should have tried his best to request a copy and should not wait five months. And after 26 days of re-submission, the Tribunal petition is hopelessly banned from time to time and there is no reduction in the petition because of delay in favor of the petitioner, there is no use of discretion. What could have been done, which had been shown by the Supreme Court to be extremely negligent and negligent in treating the petition for extension of time, was rejected and the application dismissed. top civil advocates from Naukundi lawyer