' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- The learned Single Judge of the High Court while disposing of a Constitutional petition in which the present petitioner was not a party made the following observations about him:-- "Before parting with this order I direct the office to transmit this order to respondent No:1 Inspector- General of Police, Punjab who shall ensure that the conduct demonstrated by D.S.P. Sh. Bashir Ahmed is placed before the competent authority at the time of recording his A.C.R."
2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said observations having been made without affording him opportunity of hearing filed I.C.A. Before the Division Bench of the said Court which has been dismissed with the observations that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations were not as harsh or oppressive as were being canvassed.
3. This petition is barred by 59 days. The only explanation given in the application seeking enlargement of time is that on 29-1-2000, the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the I.C.A. When he came to the High Court in connection with some other work and inquired from the office about the fate of his I.C.A. There is no explanation that after having filed the said I.C.A., he did not inquire from his counsel as in the ordinary course, a client will always ask his counsel as to what was the result of his case fixed before the High Court, therefore, we are not satisfied that sufficient ground has been shown for enlargement of time. Apart from this, the impugned observation merely was that the said conduct of the petitioner shall be placed before the competent authority, who is to record his A.C.R. And nothing else and if he would feel aggrieved about the A.C.R. If made in pursuance thereof, he shall be at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law which if sought, shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by the said observations.
4. Subject to the above observations, this petition is dismissed as barred by time and leave refused.