1. ' We intend to decide the following Intra-Court Appeals by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:-- I.C.A. No,781 of 2002, (Government of Punjab through Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and others v. Messrs Empire Cinema and Rattan Cinema).
2. I.C.A. No,557 of 2002, (Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and another v. Syed Israr Hussain Sherazi, Partner Messrs Pak International Circus)
3. I.C.A. No,731 of 2002, (Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and another v. Messrs FAT, Enterprises Contractor of Alfalah Cinema, Lahore).
4. ' The first I.C.A. Mentioned above arises out of the fact that Messrs Empire Cinema and Ratan Cinema filed Constitutional Petition No,9735 of 2002 challenging the vires of the appellants orders dated 24-1-2002 which are attached with the Constitutional petition as Annexures 'C' and 'F' which was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5-7-2002. The appellants being aggrieved filed time-barred I.C.A. No,781 of 2002 on 17-10-2002 alongwith an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. ' Second I.C.A. Mentioned above, arises out of the facts that respondents filed Constitutional Petition No,3239 of 2002 challenging the vires of the notification dated 16-4-2001 alongwith letter dated 21- 4-2001 and communications flowing on the basis of the notification in the said letter before this Court which was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7-3-2002. The appellants being aggrieved filed time-barred I.C.A. No,557 of 2002 on 8-7-2002 alongwith an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
6. ' The third I.C.A. Mentioned above, arises out of the facts that the respondent filed Constitutional Petition No,3130 of 2002 challenging the notification dated 15-8-2001 and letter of appellant No,3 dated 25-8-2001 which was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 19-6-2002. The appellants being aggrieved filed time-barred I.C.A. No,731 of 2002 on 9-9-2002 alongwith an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. ' Learned counsel of the respondents in all the aforesaid cases raised a preliminary objection that I.C.As. Be dismissed as time-barred.
8. ' When the learned Law Officer is confronted with this situation, he submits that I.C.As. Were not filed by the appellants in time on account of securing necessary instructions from the competent authority. He further submits that huge public exchequer is involved. He also submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair-play, the applications under section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the appellants be accepted.
9. ' We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. ' It is better and appropriate to reproduce paras.3 and 4 of the applications filed by the appellants alongwith their appeals to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "3. That the delay in filing the above captioned I.C.A. Has not been occasioned due to indolence or negligence of contumacious nature but primarily and predominantly the applicants/petitioners were exploring and seeking different avenues and grounds for defence.
4. That even otherwise the applicants/petitioners have been pursuing the case hotly and diligently and in further argumentation and amplification of this point it is urged before this Honourable Court that the question of limitation being a mixed question of law and facts the same must be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice."
11. ' It is pertinent to mention here that the Constitutional petitions were accepted by the learned Single Judge and Syed Riaz Hussain, Incharge Litigation Cell was also present alongwith learned Law Officer as is evident from the orders dated 5-7-2002 passed in Writ Petition No,9735 of 2002 and judgment dated 19-6-2002 in Writ Petition No,3130 of 2004. It is settled principle of law that in order to be entitled for the condonation of delay within the parameters of law, each day's delay has to be explained by the party who is seeking the condonation of delay in arriving to this conclusion. We are fortified the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Sharif's case reported as 1975 SCM R 259. The appellants failed to explain the delay of each day as is evident from the contents of the applications reproduced above, which is condition precedent in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mian Abdur Rahim Sethi's case reported as 2000 SCM R 1197. It is pertinent to mention here that grounds taken in their applications by the appellants for condonation of delay are of routine type namely, matter remained in circulation for permission to file petition for leave to appeal before this Court by the appellants for condonation of delay and that it was beyond the control of the appellant, has no force in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Federation of Pakistan v. Jamal ud Din 1996 SCM R 727. We are also fortified the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pir Ahmad Khan 1981 SCM R 37. It is also settled principle of law that the Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant, meaning thereby the Government and the ordinary litigant are equal before the Courts as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Province of East Pakistan v. Abdul Hameed Darji and others 1970 SCM R 558.
12. ' Rayees Mir Ahmad Khan's case supra 1981 SCM R 37.
13. ' Jamal ud Din Khan's case supra 1996 SCM R 727.
14. ' We do not find any ground whatsoever to condone the delay for filing belated appeals before this Court. In view of what has been discussed above, these appeals are dismissed as time-barred.