Point of Law : 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 onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within time schedule prescribed in the statute - Delay, if any, has to be bona-fide and explainable.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. With the consent of the parties, all these five petitions are being disposed of by a common order. In all these petitions, the prayer is to extend the time for completion of the arbitral proceedings so as to enable learned Arbitral Tribunal to pass the Award.

2. The arbitral disputes arise out of the land acquisition in District Bilaspur, 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 petitioners has been acquired in these cases in terms of the following awards:

3. Feeling aggrieved by the respective Awards, the land owners thereafter have preferred Reference Petitions which are pending before learned Arbitrator and non-adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the present petitions.

4. The Reference Petitions against the Award were filed by the land owners about five years back. The pleadings in all the above mentioned arbitral petitions are stated to have been completed by the parties before learned Arbitrator on 22.08.2019. However, fact of the matter is that since then the Award has not been announced by learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

5. A perusal of these petitions demonstrates that the proceedings therein were governed by the procedure as it was contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before Section 29(A) thereof was amended by the Act No. 33 of 2019, w.e.f. 31.08.2019. Meaning thereby that the arbitration proceedings were to be decided within a period of one year as from the date when learned Arbitral Tribunal entered upon the reference and with the consent of the parties the same was extendable for a period not exceeding six months. Thereafter, the mandate of Arbitrator was mandatarily to terminate unless the Court either prior or after expiry of period specified, extended the period on the request of either of the parties. Now, in terms of the amendment which has been incorporated under Section 29(A) of the Act w.e.f. 31.08.2019, the period of one year for making the Award commences from the date of completion of the pleadings.

6. Having gone through the order sheets appended with the petitions carefully, this Court is pained to observe that the proceedings have been conducted by learned Arbitrator by giving a complete go by to the statutory provisions as are contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The statutory provisions of the Act, be it before amendment or after amendment, have been flouted with impunity.

7. This Court is of the considered view 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 bona-fide and explainable.

8. Coming to the present petitions, record demonstrates that even after completion of the pleadings, the matters were adjourned by learned Arbitrator for one reason or the other on number of occasions. This Court fails to understand as to how the Arbitrator can with such a callous attitude take upon the task of deciding the arbitration proceedings knowing fully