1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82908 Reserved on 07.05.2025 Delivered on 19.05.2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15777 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S. B.M. Construction Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prerna Surolia,Ravi Kant Surolia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. HON’BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Ms. Prerna Surolia, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Siddhartha Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, Prayagraj by which the delay condonation application (5Ga) was allowed contrary to the mandate of Section 34 (3) of the of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the act of 1996’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, the Arbitration Case No.53/2023 has been filed along with delay condonation application supported by the affidavit, without any authority of law as admitted in para no.7 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application as the same has been filed awaiting the approval by the State Government. 4. She further submits that the approval for filing the aforesaid case was granted beyond the period prescribed under the Act of 1996. 5. She further submits that for filing the same, the permission was granted on 03.03.2023 and the same was filed before the court 2 concerned on 07.07.2023. She submits that the date, on which, the case was filed along with delay condonation application, is an irrelevant date for considering the delay condonation application. On the said date, though the arbitration case along with delay condonation application was filed beyond the period of 286 days. On 07.07.2023, the permission granted by the State Government was brought on record and even assuming without admitting that it will be treated as the date of curing the defect in filing the appeal without permission, but still the delay was there, which has been counted from the date of curing the defect i.e. 07.07.2023. 6. She has placed reliance upon Clause No. 15.05 of the L.R. Manual which specifically provides that no such suit/case on behalf of the State shall be instituted in any court without the prior sanction/approval of Legal Remembrancer and referred Clause No.12 of the same. 7. She next submits that until and unless the approval is granted, no suit or application can be filed, which is binding upon the parties. She further submits that specific grounds were raised and pressed at the time of hearing on the delay condonation application, but by the impugned order, the delay condonation application has been allowed without considering the application of the petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has failed to state even assuming without admitting that there was no prior permission/sanction given by the State for filing the application, however, in the case in hand, the permission was granted at a later date, an application was filed along with the delay condonation application for the defect, if any, to be cured. He further submits that the petitioner cannot rely upon the documents of the respondent-State. He further submits that since the limitation was expired, just to save the interest of the State, the present application was moved. 3 9. Rebutting to the said submission, Ms. Prerna submits that the delay of 286 days has already been occurred on the date of filing of the sanction letter on 07.07.2023, which cannot be condoned. 10. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita Vs. Walchandnagar Industries Limited (WIL) reported in (2023) 8 SCC 453. 11. Upon hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records. 12. The record shows that the application was filed without there being any sanction from the State as admitted in para no.7 of the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid case filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.3 at page no.33 onwards. The para no. 15.05 of the L.R. Manual reads as under:- “15.05. Authority for institution of suits by the Government- No suit with a valuation exceeding Rs. 2,500 on behalf of the State shall be instituted in any court without the prior sanction of of the Legal Remembrancer.” 13. On perusal of the afore-quote para, it prohibits for filing any suit prior to sanction of the State Government. Once there is a prohibition, the application has been filed without any authority. Once the authority has not granted approval for filing the same, it cannot be treated to be the proper filing. 14. Admittedly, the permission was granted on 03.03.2023, a copy of sanction has been brought on record of the lower court on 07.07.2023 and up to 06.07.2023, the application was defective and the same was cured on 07.07.2023. The authority below ought to have considered the objections raised by the petitioner, but without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. 4 15. In view of the facts as stated above as well in the light of para no.15.05 of the L.R. Manual, the impugned order is liable to quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. 16. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order Date :-19.05.2025 Pravesh Mishra/- (PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad