The court emphasized that delays in arbitration due to administrative issues not attributable to the parties justify extending the arbitrator's mandate as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioners, Rajesh Thakur & Prem Kumar, have come up before this Court seeking following prayers:-

“That the impugned order dated 26.05.2023 Annexure P-3, passed in Arbitration case No.372/2018 titled as Rajesh Thakur and another versus NHAI and another, may kindly be ordered to be set-aside and the mandate ofArbitrator may kindly be extended and reasonable time may be granted to conclude the arbitration proceedings, in view of the submissions made hereinabove, in the interest of justice.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set up by Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that pursuant to Notification under Section 3(a) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956, the Central Government published a Notification to acquire the land for building, widening, maintenance, management and operation of the said Highway in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, the land belonging to petitioner comprising Khasra no.29, 32, 48 out of these land denoted by Khasra no.29/1, 32/1 and 48/1, Kitas 3 measuring 05-99, 15-83 and 1-30 hectares in total comes to 23-12 hectares situated in Mauja Dolag, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan [HP] was acquired and the Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award No.30, on 27.06.2016.

2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 27.06.2016 passed by Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners filed reference petition before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, which was registered as Reference Petition No.372 of 2018, whereby the Learned Arbitrator continued the arbitral proceedings, but on 26.05.2023 [Annexure P-3], referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’, the arbitral proceedings were closed and the mandate of Arbitrator was treated to have been terminated on the ground that the arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the time schedule as per Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

2(ii). Consequent upon the termination of mandate of Arbitrator and closure of arbitral proceedings the parties were directed to seek extension of time for continuance of arbitral proceedings by invoking the jurisdiction of a competent Court. In the above background, the petitioners, have approached this Court that due to the passing of order dated 26.05.2023 [Annexure P-3] the petitioners were left without any remedy before an Arbitrator coupled with the fact that delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was not attributable either to the petitioners or the claimants-respondents. Moreover, the delay in completion of arbitral proceedings was entirely due to administrative reasons which reveal sufficient cause, for which the parties to arbitration should not be made to suffer. Moreover, the termination of arbitral proceedings and termination of mandate of Arbitrator tends to cause prejudice to the parties and therefore, in these circumstances, it was prayed that at least six months time may be granted to Learned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings.

REPLY AND STAND OF NHAI-RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2

3. Respondent No.2 has not filed any reply to the instant petition. However, the Respondent No.1- National Highway Authority of India has filed a reply, opposing this application, on the ground that (i) this application has been filed belatedly after a delay of eight years as time for making the award expired long back and the application for extension, ought to have been filed at that relevant time; and (ii) in case the arbitral proceedings are revoked/revived by allowing extension of time the Public Exchequer will be put to heavy loss as interest liability will be fastened on them for the period after the expiry of permissible period of one year perio