Court extends arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4)(5) post-expiry for sufficient cause where proceedings advanced, delay administrative, not petitioner's fault, ensuring logical and expeditious conclusion.

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner-Parvinder Singh has come up before this Court, under Section 29-A (4) (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking following relief(s):-

“That the period from 13.08.2025 onwards may kindly be regularized and the mandate of the arbitrator may kindly be extended for a reasonable time.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Central Government issued a Notification under the National Highways Act for acquiring the land at Hamirpur Bypass of National Highway-103 and National Highway-3 (Design change KM 121+175 to KM 138=295 of village Kamlah Mouzajangal Ropa, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh was acquired, in terms of the Award No. 27/2022 dated 13.06.2023.

2(i) Feeling dissatisfied against the Award, the petitioner filed a Reference before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act vide Reference No. NH-(16/24) In re: Parvinder Singh versus LAC-cum-S.D.O © Hamirpur. Perusal of the petition indicates that even after the completion of pleadings, Learned Arbitrator could not conclude the proceedings within the prescribed period of 12 months. Thereafter, with consent of the parties, the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings was extended.

2(ii). Perusal of the pleadings in the instant petition reveals that the petitioner-Parvinder Singh invoked arbitration by filing the petition on 02.03.2024. After completion of pleadings the issues were framed and the petitioner–claimant, led his PWs evidence by way of affidavit. Respondents chose not to file any evidence in rebuttal. Even the written arguments were submitted by Petitioners counsel and the case was reserved for announcement of orders/ judgment. Even the perusal of the impugned orders dated 05.08.2025 indicates that the predecessor in office of the present Arbitrator-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi had reserved the matter on 18.07.2025 after hearing arguments, but no Award was pronounced. The present incumbent/ Arbitrator had stated that he joined as Divisional Commissioner on 04.08.2025 and, therefore, since the mandate of the Arbitrator had already elapsed. Therefore, the parties were directed to approach the competent Court for extension of time so that arbitral could proceed hereinafter.

It is in this backdrop that the instant petition has been filed, assailing the orders dated 05.08.2025 in case No. 16/2024 passed by respondent No.4-Learned Arbitrator with the prayer to direct the concerned Arbitrator to conclude the arbitral proceedings under Section 29-A(4)(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

STAND OF RESPONDENT No.1 [NHAI] :

3. Upon listing of this case today, Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned counsel for respondent No.2- National Highway Authority of India, on Instructions, states that keeping in view the intent and object of the arbitral proceedings which have to be given a practical shape so that the rights of the parties fructify by taking the proceedings to logical end coupled with the fact that in similar cases, the Arbitration proceedings originating from the same acquisition notice and the award have been concluded; therefore, she submits that in peculiar fact-situation of this case, no reply is intended to be filed to the present case.

4. Learned State Counsel states that since the contesting respondent is NHAI-Respondent No.1, therefore, no reply is intended to be filed on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 4- State.

5. Heard, Mr. Parveen Kumar Bhatti, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1-National Highway Aut