JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents inspite of repeated calls. The hearing of this appeal is taken up ex-parte.

3. This appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 18.05.2007, passed in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2006 by the Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh whereby and where under, the learned Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh has dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellants as the same was barred by limitation.

4. The brief facts of the case is that an agreement was entered into on 15.07.1988 between the appellant no. 2 and the original sole respondent who has since been substituted by his legal representatives being the respondent no. 1 to 5 during the pendency of this appeal; for construction of a bridge by 14th July, 1990. The construction activity at the site was taken up in a very slow pace and by the end of 1991, the work was done up to deck slab level. The respondent completed the work besides some extra work which was beyond the agreement. In Title Suit No. 36 of 1999, Sri B.B. Sinha, Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Circle, Dhanbad was appointed as an Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator Sri B.B. Sinha submitted his award on 06.11.2003 but did not supply a signed copy of the award to the appellants. The appellants filed a petition inter-alia under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 along with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 34(1) of the Act on 28.04.2006. As mentioned in the impugned order, the Arbitrator submitted his Award in the court on 06.11.2003 and on 29.11.2003, the Arbitrator filed a petition to direct the defendant-Executive Engineer, N.H. Barhi who is the appellant no. 2 herein to pay Rs.14,775/-and ultimately, the learned court below made the Award, the decree of that court vide order dated 07.06.2006. The learned court below rejected the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being barred by limitation.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General-II that a signed copy of the Arbitral Award having not been served upon the person directly involved in the proceeding before the arbitrator on behalf of the Government being appellant no. 2, mere knowledge of the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of the said Award cannot be construed as amounting to delivering the signed copy of the Award to the appellant no. 2 to constitute a sufficient compliance of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in the absence of such service of the signed copy of the award upon the appellants, the period of limitation for filing the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 has not even started and the learned court below erred in holding that the petitioner under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 filed by the appellant in the learned court below, is barred by limitation. In support of his contention Mr. Sachin Kumar, relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239, paragraph nos.7 of which reads as under:

7. It is well known that the Ministry of Railways has a very large area of operation covering several divisions, having different divisional heads and various departments within the division, having their own departmental heads. The General Manager of the Railways is at the very apex of the division with the responsibility of taking strategic decisions, laying down policies of the organisation, giving administrative instructions and issuing guidelines in the organisation. He is from elite managerial cadre which runs the entire organisation of his division with differen