1. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1 is a consumer, in the name of his father Bashir Ahmad Zahid, of tube well, who was served with detection bill for an amount of Rs, 91,665/- for the month of March 2014, charged for 7625-units. The Electric Inspector after taking into consideration all the submissions made by the parties, passed an order on 01.04.2015, declaring the demand of respondent authority as void. Feeling aggrieved, appeal was filed before Appellate Board, who upheld the order of Electric Inspector, vide order dated 08.09.2015. Through the instant petition, the aforesaid order has been assailed with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may very kindly be accepted and the orders of POI dated 01.04.2015 and the order of the Appellate Board dated 08.09.2015 may kindly be set aside and declared illegal and without lawful authority and of legal effect.
2. 2.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. He adds that due to unavoidable circumstances, appeal was not filed within time, thus the delay should have been condoned.
4. 3.Heard. Available record perused.
5. 4.The operative part of impugned order reads as under:-- "7. From bare perusal of above referred provisions it can be safely suggested that the appeal should be filed within 30 days of the announcement of the decision. It has been observed that the impugned decision was announced by POI on 01.04.2015 and the appeal was filed with NEPRA on 08.06.2015 i,e, after 69 days of its announcement by POI. Evidently FESCO failed to file the appeal within the time limit of 30 days as prescribed under Section 38 of the Act. It is always the duty of the parties to remain vigilant and obtain certified copy for the purpose of filing appeal. Therefore we are inclined to hold that valuable right has accrued in favor of the respondent due to failure on part of FESCO in filing the instant appeal before NEPRA within the time as prescribed by law. As a matter of fact FESCO is required to explain and justify each day of the delay in filing the appeal after the decision was pronounced on 01.04.2015 and copy was received on 08.04.2015 but FESCO failed to do so. Therefore it is concluded that the appeal is time barred and the same is dismissed accordingly."
5. Perusal of record transpires that since appeal of petitioner was barred by time, therefore, same was dismissed accordingly, by the Appellate Board. Law on the subject is very clear that such an indolence would cultivate a right in favour of opposite party, which Gould not be lightly dislocated, to maintain judicial balance. Even a Government/attached department/statutory office/company/ instrumentality could not be treated differently from ordinary litigant on the question of limitation.
6. By lapse of time, valuable rights accrued favour of private respondent, which could not be lightly disturbed and destroyed for the reasons that authorities were negligent in ursuing their remedy.
7. The delay of each day has to be satisfactorily explained. Existence of valuable right of the party seeking con donation of delay is not a proper ground for condonation of delay in civil matters. The Government/attached department on question of limitation, could not be treated differently from ordinary litigant as , held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector of Customs, Sialkot Dry Port, Sambrtal, District Sialkot and others v.
8. Messrs Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager and 3 others (1998'SCMR 307).
9. 6.The appeal filed by petitioner before Appellate Board was vividly time barred, which did not disclose any cogent, convincing and justified reasons for condonation of delay. Law on the subject is very clear that each and every day's delay is to be satisfactorily explained. Reference in this regard can be made to Almas Ahmed Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning' Development, Lahore and another (2007 PLC 64), Rehmat Din and others v, Mirza Nasir Abbas (2007 SCMR 1560), Mls. Nida-e-Millat, f Lahore v. Commissioner of Income Tax Zone I, Lahore (2008 SCMY.i, 284), Food' Department Gujranwala v. Ghulam F'arid Awan (2010 SCMR 1899), Worldcall Telecom Limited v. Pakistani Telecommunication Authority through Chairman (2011 SCMR 959), Qaiser Mushtaq Ahmad v. Controller of Examinations (PLD 2011, Supreme Court 174), Lal Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf (PLD 2011' Supreme Court 657), and LANVIN TRADERS, Karachi v. Presiding Officer Banking Court No, II, Karachi (2013 SCMR 1419).1 7.In the case of Almas Ahmad Fiaz supra, the Hon'ble' Supreme Court held as under:-- "It is a settled principle of law that the question of limitation under Section 46 of the I.R.O. has to be rigidly construed on the well-known maxim that no party is allowed to circumvent1 the provisions of the statute of limitation. It is yet another principle of law that the party approaching Court of competent jurisdiction for redress of grievance beyond specified, period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side. See "Government of Punjab v Muhammad Salim" (PLD 2'995 SC 396), (1995. SCMR 546 "Rehmat Ullah and others v. Ulyas Khan" (1968 SCMR 975) and "Pakistan Railway v. Ghulam Sarwar" (1989 SCMR 864)."
8. Petitioner has failed to explain the delay in filing appeal before Appellate Board, thus no illegality or legal infirmity is found in the impugned order. Resultantly, instant petition is hereby dismissed in limine.