1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Arb. Case No. 340 of 2025 Decided on: 1.4.2026 Ramesh Chand & ors. … Petitioners Versus UOI & ors. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the Defendants : Mr. Aditya Singh Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Ms. Ayushi Negi, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 3/State. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 not filed. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that reply filed by respondent No. 2 be treated as reply on behalf of respondent No. 1. His statement is taken on record. Ordered accordingly. 2 2. The present petition under Section 29 A (4) (5)of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioners seeking extension of time for completion of the arbitration proceedings in Arbitration Reference Case No. 102/2017, titled as Ramesh Chand & others vs. NHAI and anr., pending before the Divisional Commissioner-cum- Arbitrator at Shimla. H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956. 3. The arbitral dispute has arisen out of the land acquired in District Shimla 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. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, the landowners have preferred Arbitration Reference Case No.102/2017. before the Arbitrator cum- Divisional Commissioner, at Shimla, and non adjudication of the arbitral proceedings within the statutory period has resulted in filing of the instant petition. 3 5. The Reference Petition against the Award was filed by the land owners in the year 2017. According to the petitioners, on account of unforeseen circumstances in the case, unnecessary delay in the announcement of the award by the learned Arbitrator, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla District Shimla, HP., has been caused. 6. 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. The delay, if any, has to be bonafide and explainable. However, in the present petition, even after completion of the pleadings, the 4 Arbitrator has closed the proceedings since the time limit for arbitral proceedings to pass an award had elapsed. 7. In view of aforesaid discussions and taking into consideration the attending facts and circumstance of the case, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. H.P., exercising the powers of Arbitrator under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, is directed to conclude arbitral proceedings and to pass the arbitral award in Arbitration Reference Case No.102/2017, on or before 25th September, 2026. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Virender Singh) 1.4.2026 Judge Kalpana