Himachal Pradesh High Court
Atul Anand vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 December, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Arb. Case No.952 of 2023
Date of Decision: 19.12.2023
.
_____________________________________________________________
Atul Anand
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
of
____________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1
__________________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Somesh
Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. V.B. Verma, CGSC., for
respondents No.1.
Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice
Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent No.2/NHAI.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General, with Mr. Raj Kumar Negi,
Additional Advocate General, for
respondents No.3 & 4/State.
___________________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. V.B. Verma, learned Central
Government Standing Counsel, Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate,
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Raj Kumar
Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive
.
service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4
respectively.
2. In the present petition, a prayer has been made
by the petitioner to extend the time for completion of the
of
arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Case No.48/2019,
pending before
rt the learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, exercising the
powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National
Highways Act, 1956.
3. The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land
acquisition in District Solan, H.P. for the purpose of
construction of the National Highway, land for which has
been acquired under the provisions of National Highways
Act, 1956. The land of the petitioner has been acquired in
the present case and the award has been passed by the
Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition Authority under
the Act (CALA) Solan, District Solan, H.P.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the
landowner has preferred Arbitration Case No.48/2019,
.
which is pending before the learned Arbitrator-cum-
Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and
non-adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the
statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition.
of
5. The Reference Petition against the Award was filed
by the land owner long back. According to the petitioner,
rt
repeated adjournments were granted by the learned
Arbitrator without caring for the time period and mandate
under Section 29A of the Act, which resulted in unnecessary
delay in the announcement of the award by the learned
Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, District
Shimla, H.P.
6. This Court has gone through the material
available on record and finds that the proceedings have been
conducted by the learned 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. The
delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However,
in the present petition even after completion of the
of
pleadings, the matter was adjourned by the learned
Arbitrator on one pretext or the other. This Court fails to
rt
understand as to how the Arbitrator with such a callous
attitude can decide the arbitration proceedings knowing fully
well that if the proceedings are not completed within the
time stipulated in the Act, then unless the same is extended
by a Court of Law, the mandate of the Arbitrator shall stand
terminated.
7. However, at this stage, the Court is restraining
from making any further observation in the case save and
except that henceforth, if the Court finds the Arbitrator
derelicting his duties, then it shall not hesitate to invoke its
powers as enshrined in Section 29 (A) (6) of the 1996 Act, to
terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator, dehors the fact that
the Arbitrator happens to be appointed in terms of the
notification issued by the Central Government under Section
.
3G (a) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
8. In view of the above discussion, the instant
petition is allowed and the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, exercising the
of
powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National
Highways Act, 1956 is directed to conclude the arbitral
rt
proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration
Case No.48/2019, on or before 18th June, 2024.
Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending
miscellaneous applications, if any.
( Sushil Kukreja )
December 19, 2023 Judge
(subhash)
