NASIM SIKANDAR, J.--- This application seeks revival of Writ Petition No. 2838/1991 re: Sikandar International (Pvt.) Limited and 3 others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and 4 others consigned to record on 4.9.2001.
2. In Para 3 of the application it is stated that Mr. Aamer Soahil, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the applicants was not fully briefed and therefore he could not assist the Court resulting consignment of the petition to record as noted above.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I will refuse to allow the prayer made in the petition. The aforesaid constitutional petition was field on 10.4.1991. On 13.4.1991 it was admitted to regular hearing and in the meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated 30.4.1991 was suspended. On 21.5.1991 the proceedings before the Special Judge Customs were also stayed during the pendency of the petition. On 10.6.1992 a request for amendment of petition was made on the ground that respondent No. 2, Central Board of Revenue (CBR) had passed an order during the existence of the aforesaid injunctive order by this Court. Thereafter the petition was fixed for a number. Of times in which adjournments were sought for on one reason or the other. On 27.11.1994 the petition was directed to be listed alongwith W.P. No. 8797/1994. The case was again listed after more than seven years when the order in question was recorded on 4.9.2001.
In that order my learned brother Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J as his lordship then was observed that it was a matter pertaining to the year 1991 which he believed to be no more alive.
4. This application has been made after more than four years of the recording of the order. The reason apparently being that the petitioner has so far enjoyed the fruits of the injunction order issued by this Court, both against recovery as well as against the criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge Customs. The petition was consigned to record in the presence of the counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner. It is not his case that he was not aware of the consigning to the record of the petition. This case is a very unfortunate example of misuse of the process of law and of the Court. As is apparent from the record, the matter pertains to the refund of the rebate earlier received by the petitioner from the Customs Authorities as back as the year 1987.
During all these years he has been successful in avoiding both recovery as well as criminal proceedings. In fact he has already benefited even the consignment to record of the petition.
Apparently he has made this petition only when someone somewhere along the lines has noted and attempted to dig out the buried recovery and criminal proceedings to the day light.
The principle of laches as applicable to the constitutional petitions is equally attracted to incidental proceedings, more particularly an application for revival as in the case in hand. As observed above, the petitioner has already had the fruits of an injunctive order and he is approaching this Court only when apparently the noose around his neck has tightened. There appears no justifiable reason to revive the proceedings.
6. Dismissed.
Civil .