This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the EPA in favour of respondent No, 6 granting environmental approval for project (construction of Mian Factory Chak No, 54/2-L, 27-Wala Road District Okara).
2. The appeal was filed on 20.07.2017. Along with this appeal an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay has been filed. In para 2 of the application it is mentioned that appellant came to know the impugned order on 10.06.2017 through respondent No,
6. During hearing of arguments on 05.04.2018 learned counsel for the appellant was confronted with this fact as the appeal is to be filed within 30 days. Learned counsel at that time sought adjournment to prepare the brief on this point. Arguments on this point were heard on 18.04.2018.
3. The honourable apex Court while examining the provisions of section 29(2) and section 5 of the Limitation Act has held in "Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others" (2001 SCMR 286) that where the law under which proceedings had been initiated itself A prescribed a period of limitation, then the benefit of section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1908, could not be availed unless the same had been made applicable as per section 29(2) of The Act. The operation of section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded by section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Reliance is also placed on the case reported as Haji Ahmad v. Noor Muhammad (2004 SCMR 1630) and City District Government v. Muhammad Saeed Amin (2006 SCMR 676) "Abdul Rasheed and another v. Bank of Punjab through Branch Manager" (2004 CLD 800), "Protein and Fats International (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 2 others v. Capital Assets Leasing Corporation Limited through Manager" (2005 CLD 857), "Sikandar Hayat v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager" (2005 CLD 870) and "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Rehmania Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 3 others" (2006 CLD 81) and it was held that since special law has provided different period of limitation for filing appeal in the Court than the ordinary law, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to the appeal preferred beyond period of limitation provided in that special law. In "Messrs S. Malik Traders and another v.
Saudi Pak Leasing Company Ltd." (2009 CLD 171) it was also held that provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, cannot be made applicable in an appeal, having been preferred under a special Statute.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on 2014 CLC 445 but the facts of the case do not cover the facts of the instant appeal on all its four corners and are distinguishable. The law is settled by the apex court. The benefit of section 5 of Limitation Act is not available to the appellant in condoning the delay. Due to slackness on the part of appellant a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent No,6. Therefore the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed being not maintainable and appeal is dismissed being time barred.