2026:HHC:6971 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 34/2026 Decided on: 12.03.2026 Preet Mohinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus National Highway Authority of India & ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Kruldeep Singh Chandel, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,for respondent No.1.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel CCounsel for respondent No.2.

Mr. Baldev Negi, Addl. A.G. for respondents No. 3 & 4/State.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

i The present petition under Section 29-A (4) (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Case No. 115/2023, titled as Preet Mohinder vs. NHAI & ors., pending before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.,

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

2 The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Solan, H.P. for the purpose of co.nstruction of the National Highway, land for which has been acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956.

3 Feeling aggrieved by tohe award passed by the competent authority, the landow ner has preferred Arbitration Case No.115/2023, before the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings withoin the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

4 The Reference Petition against the Award was filed byh the land owner in the year 2023. According to the petitioner, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, which resulted in unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

5 This Court has gone through the material available on record carefully and finds that the proceedings have been conducted by the Arbitrator in violation of statutory provisions, as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court is of the 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. T.he delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However, in the present petition even after completion of the pleadings, the Arbitrator has closed the proceedinogs since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an aw ard had elapsed.

6 In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the instant case, othe Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 is hdirected to conclude the arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Case No.115/2023, on or before

12th September, 2026.

7 The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(Romesh Verma)

12.03.2026 Judge

(pankaj)