Court extends arbitrator's mandate post-termination under Section 29A(5) for sufficient cause like procedural and administrative delays not attributable to petitioner, ensuring practical, expeditious conclusion of advanced proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner-Dinesh Singh Thakur and three other, being the legal heirs of late Shri Joginder Singh Thakur (since deceased) have come up before this Court in instant petition filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking following relief(s):-

“That the period since the pendency of the Arbitration Case No.157/16 titled Joginder Vs. NHAI and others may be regularized and the mandate of the Arbitrator may be extended for a reasonable time as deemed proper by this Hon’ble Court.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case as setup by Learned Counsel is that pursuant to Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Central Government published a Notification to acquire the stretch of land from 106.0002 to 155.800 Kms. (Solan–Shimla Section), for four lanning etc. in State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the land in 22 villages of Tehsil Shimla [Rural], including the lands of the predecessor of the petitioners were acquired by Competent Authority/Land Acquisition [referred to as CALA] Award No.4, dated 25.05.2015.
2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 25.05.2015, passed by CALA, the predecessor of the petitioners filed a reference petition before Learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, which was registered as Reference Petition No.157/2016, upon which, the Learned Arbitrator commenced arbitral proceedings and these proceedings continued but surprisingly, the Learned Arbitrator passed a common order on 13.03.2023 [Annexure P-3], closing the arbitral proceedings on the ground that the mandate of Arbitrator stood terminated, as the arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the time schedule as prescribed under Section 29A(1) and Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
In this backdrop, the petitioner has come up before this Court, for seeking extension of mandate of Arbitrator, so that the arbitral proceedings could be concluded expeditiously.

3. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has allowed identical matters granting extension, for continuing the arbitral proceedings, which are pending before the Learned Arbitraor-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, (HP).

4. Upon issuance of notice, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute this position. On query by this Court, Learned Counsel for the respondents-NHAI, states that in peculiar fact-situation of instant case, he does not intend to file any reply. Accordingly, this Court, proceeds to dispose of the instant petition, without reply, at this stage itself, which shall only expedite the conclusion of arbitral proceedings, in which parties have participated since the year 2016, till the passing of Impugned Order on 13.03.2023 [Annexure P-3].

5. Heard, Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents-National Highway Authority of India and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.2.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
6. For appreciating the claim of the parties herein, it is necessary to have a recap of the statutory provision of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’], reads as under:-

“29A. Time limit for arbitral award —
(1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under subsection (4) of section 23:
Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavor may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.
(2) If the award is m