SC orders action against KP officials over time-barred pleas issue

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday directed Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) chief secretary (CS) to take action against the persons responsible for filing time-barred appeals in cases related to different government departments and submit compliance report.

A three-member SC bench, headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, and comprising Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard different appeals regarding the government servants of KP.

The court dismissed three different appeals, filed by the provincial government in cases related to different departments for being time-barred and directed the KP chief secretary to take action against those responsible for filing such appeals.

The CJ observed that it seems that the policymakers have no control over the behaviour of subordinate staff of government departments. KP additional advocate general submitted before the court that an appeal had been filed well on time in the same nature of case and pending before the apex court.

He contended that as the same legal questions had been raised in both the case, he requested the court to club both the cases. The chief justice asked the law officer to cite law for the purpose. The law officer stated that there was no specific rule or law, any decision given be the court would be applicable to the case.

The court did not agree with the contention of the law officer and dismissed the appeal after sending it to the KP chief secretary. In the second appeal, the additional advocate general submitted that it was time-barred of only 18 days while in the third appeal, he contended that the relevant department had not provided the required documents well on time.

The CJ told the law officer that it did not matter whether an appeal was time-barred for a day or a year. “You should have at least admitted your fault for filing time-barred appeals.” The law officer regretted and assured the court he would be careful in future. The court dismissed the appeals and held that no record was available on record regarding correspondence with the department for provision of required documents.