1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will govern Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal bearing Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 of 1975 as the question requiring consideration in all these petitions is the same, namely, whether the delay of 108 days which has occurred in filing these petitions can be condoned on the grounds set out in the application for the condonation of delay.
2. The impugned order was passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit Bench on 14-3-1975 for which date of hearing, according to the petitioner, the Department had not received any notice.
3. However, it is admitted that a copy of the said order of the High Court was received by the Department on 5-5-1975. This copy remained under scrutiny in the office of the Commissioner, Income-tax, Lahore, till 21-5-1975 when it was referred to Mr. Hamidullah Siddiqui, Legal Adviser to the Income-tax Department for advice and opinion whether a petition for special leave to appeal should be moved in the matter. His advice was received on 5-6-1975. On the next day the papers were sent to Sh. Abdul Haque (who is representing the Depart--ment before us and standing counsel of the Department) on 6-6-1975 for his "considered opinion" and he returned the papers with his advice on 7-6-1975.
4. The petitioner then sought such further clarification from the standing counsel on 11-6-1965 who replied on the same day. The case was then referred to the Central Board of Revenue on 16-6-1975 for instructions and after some further correspondence telegraphic instructions were received from the Central Board of Revenue on 3-7-1975 to move this Court for special leave to appeal. The petitioner thereafter addressed the standing counsel on 3-7-1975 to take necessary action who wrote back on 4-7-1975 that certified copies of the judgment and of the reference application should be secured immediately. On 8-7-1975, the applicant addressed the Income-tax Officer, Bahawalpur to procure the aforesaid copies from the High Court Office, Bahawalpur. On 16-7-1975, the standing counsel again addressed the applicant for supplying him complete facts of the case to explain the delay in making the petition for special leave to appeal. Then there were some more correspondence between counsel, the petitioner and the Income-tax Officer, Bahawalpur and the copies of the documents requited for the petition for special leave and information for the application for condonation of delay were supplied to the counsel on 22-7-1975. The counsel sought clarification of certain matters on 23-7-1975 resulting in further correspondence between the petitioner, Income---tax Officer, Bahawalpur and the counsel and the points of doubt were resolved finally when correct copy of High Court judgment for use in this Court was received from the Income-tax Officer, Bahawalpur and passed on to the Court on 25-8-1975. The counsel had, in the meantime, prepared the petition for special leave to appeal and it was transmitted to the Advocate-on-Record, who filed it on 29-8-1975. On these facts it was submitted that there was no negligence or avoidable delay in pursuing the case.
5. We do not share this view. The limitation for filing the petition for special leave to appeal is 60 days and even if the time from 14-3-1975, when the High Court passed the ex parte order against the petitioner, up to the date on which its copy was received in the Department, namely, 5-5-1975 is excluded the petition is still out of time by nearly 2 months. The time said to have been spent during which the various authorities were examining the matter with a view to decide whether an appeal should or should not be filed cannot be excused. This Court has repeatedly laid down that so far as the limitation is concerned, the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant. In fact, the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources a much larger than those possessed by ordinary litigants, If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirement of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law. See Province of East Pakistan v.
6. Abdul Hamid Darji (1970 SCMR 558), The Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, Lahore etc. v. Syed Safdar Hussain Shah (1979 SCMR 45) and Custodian of Enemy Property v. Hoshang N. Dastur and others (1979 SCMR 191).
7. We may, again clarify that according to the law each day of limitation must properly and satisfactorily be explained and the excuse that the matte got delayed because of its having remained under examination at different departmental levels is never a valid ground for extension of period of imitation and does not constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It is a matter of regret that despite this position being repeatedly clarified by this Court and the High Courts the Government Departments with all their resources continue to delay the filing of the cases in time with loss to the Government and the public interest. It is High time that the Government Departments so organise their business that legal cases are not unnecessarily delayed and are instituted in Court within the time limited for such matters.
8. The overall result is that all these petitions must fail on the ground of limitation and are, accordingly dismissed hereby.