State Of Rajasthan And Others vs M/s Kmc Constructions Ltd And Others

Rekha Borana, J

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur in Arbitration Petition No.16/2011 (Civil Misc.38) whereby the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as preferred by the State have been rejected.

The appeal is reported to be barred by 1056 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of the said delay.

The reasons as stated in the application do not appeal to this Court. Evidently, as submitted in the application, at the first instance, the government counsel opined vide his opinion dated 16.09.2015 that it is not a fit case for filing appeal. However, the file was rolled on from one table to another for further instructions and ultimately it is only after a period of about three years that the legal department took a decision on 24.01.2018 not to file any appeal. After the said decision, repeated communications for sanction of the budget to comply with the award were made. However, again a legal opinion was sought and in pursuance to the said legal opinion dated 15.06.2018, on 28.06.2018, it was decided to prefer an appeal. Consequently, the present appeal was filed on 25.07.2018.

In the specific opinion of this Court, the reasons as aforementioned are not such which can be termed to be plausible for condonation of the huge delay of 1056 days. It is clear that it is only because of the governmental mannerism of rotating the file from one table to another that, for more than a period of three years, the file awaited a simple decision whether an appeal is to be preferred against the impugned award.

The Hon’ble Apex court in the judgment of Postmaster General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, held as under:

“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to condone the huge delay of 1056 days caused in filing the present appeal.

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hence, dismissed.

As a consequence, the appeal also stands dismissed.

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.