IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 781 of 2025 Decided on : 20.3.2026 Decided on: 31.3.2026 Desh Raj Thakur … Petitioner Versus H.P. City Transport & Bus Stand Mana gement &

Development Authority & anr. f o …Respondents _____________________________ ______________

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

___________________________________________________

For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior oAdvocate with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate.

Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner Desh Raj Thakur has filed the present petition, under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 6.12.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla.

2. By way of order dated 6.12.2025, learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P. has allowed the application filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), moved by the respondents to condone the delay in filing the objections, against the award dated 4.6.2025.

3. Parties to the present lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned District Judge, Shimla.

4. Brief facts leading to filingf the present petition may be summed up as under:

The petitioners have filed application under Section 34 (3) of the Act by pleading that objections, under Section 34 of the Act, have been preferred before the learned District Judge. Since, those objections have been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, application under Section 34(3) of the Act has been filed on the ground that copy of the award had been received on 4.6.2025, and the same was, thereafter, sent to the Department on 9.6.2025. The file was, subsequently sent to the competent authority for approval for filing the objections, against the award and the approval was received on 28.8.2025. On 3.9.2025, a letter was written to their counsel. The matter for depositing the awarded amount before the Court was sent to the competent authority and the same was approved on 9.9.2025. The period of 90 days has expired on 3.9.2025 and the present application has been moved on 19.9.2025. Delay in filing the objections is stated to be due to the reason that seeking approval from the competent authority is a time confsuming process. The delay is also stated to be unintentional. As such, a prayer has been made to condone the delay.

5. When, put to notice, the application had been contested by the respondent, on the ground, that application is devoid of merit and sufficient grounds have not been explained for condoning the delay. The petitioners are stated to be grossly negligent in filing the objection, against the award dated 4.6.2025.

6. The prayer, so made in the application, has also been opposed on the ground that vague averments have been made in the application and no dates have been given.

7. In nut-shell, the prayer made in the application has been opposed on the ground that each date has to be explained to the judicial conscience of the Court.

8. On merit, factual position, as asserted in the application, has been controverted. However, passing of the award has not been disputed.

9. The learned District Judge has considered the application and allowed the same, vide order dated 6.12.2025, by holding that there afppears to be delay of

16/17 days, which has properly been explained.

10. Another reason, which has been given for condoning the delay is the fact that in the Government offices, files move through different channels.

11. Aggrieved from the said order, the present petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the applicant has miserably failed to explain each day’s delay to the judicial satisfaction of the learned District Judge.

12. The approach adopted by the learned District Judge is also assailed by way of present petition on the ground that the petitioners-Department is not entitled to any special treatment