Sunil Sethi vs Union Of India & Ors

Sushil Kukreja, J

Notice. Mr. Rajinder Thakur, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 3 respectively.

In the present petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to extend the time for completion of the arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Reference Petition No.74/2016, before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquisition in District Solan, H.P. for the purpose of construction of the National Highway, land for which has been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. The land of the petitioner has been acquired for the construction of Four Lane Road. The respondent No.3 had passed an Award No.31, dated 31.03.2016.

Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowner has preferred Arbitration Reference Petition No.74/2016, before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla and non-adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owner long back. According to the petitioner, repeated adjournments were granted by the learned Arbitrator without caring for the time period and mandate under Section 29A of the Act, which resulted in unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award and on 02.08.2023, learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla had closed the proceedings as the time limit to pass an award had lapsed due to termination of mandate as per Section 29-A of the Act.

This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the learned Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Needless to mention here that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. The delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However, in the present petition even after completion of the pleadings, the matter was adjourned and on 02.08.2023, the learned Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit to pass an award had lapsed.

However, at this stage, the Court is restraining from making any further observation in the case save and except that henceforth, if the Court finds the Arbitrator derelicting his duties, then it shall not hesitate to invoke its powers to terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator, dehors the fact that the Arbitrator happens to be appointed in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 3G (a) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 is directed to conclude the arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Petition No.74/2016, on or before 31st August, 2024.

Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.