M/S National Highway Authority of India vs. Sudershan Mahajan and others OMP(M) No. 347 of 2024 Item No.D-4 13.08.2025 Present: Mr. Kanwarjit Singh and Mr.J.P Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr. J.S Bhogal, Senior Advocate (through Video conferencing) with Ms.Srishti Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3-State. OMP(M) No347 of 2024 Notice. Ms. Srishti Verma, learned counsel and Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 & 3, respectively. 2. The instant application is filed for condoning the delay of 154 days’ in filing the appeal against the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Arb. Case No. 76 of 2011. 3. The instant application has been opposed vehemently by the counsel for respondent No.1, both by filing reply and by way of addressing arguments. 4. A perusal of the application, duly supported by affidavit of the official-Project Director, NHAI, would go on to show that the copy of the judgment was applied on 03.04.2024; and prepared on 29.04.2024; and intimation was given to the appellants; and approval to file present appeal was granted on 31.07.2024. The same was received by the counsel in the month of August, 2024; and the appeal was thereafter drafted; and sent for approval to the Project Director, NHAI. The same was got signed and attested on 02.10.2024, on account of the fact that there were some amendments to be made and draft had been resent on September, 2024. The same was thereafter sent to the local counsel for filing on 03.10.2024, but the filing could not be done due to Dussehra Holidays w.e.f 05.10.2024 to 13.10.2024. 5. A perusal of reply filed as such would go on to show that the respondent No.1 has taken a plea that there is no proper explanation and separate period for filing of appeal cannot be claimed by the Authority and there was no bonafide effort on the part of the appellant and the appellant has failed to explain each days’ delay. 6. The rejoinder (sic replication) has also been filed, whereby further details have been given as to how the matter has been processed date wise. 7. Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid- down in the Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Smt. Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 752 that each and every day’s delay is not to be explained and if there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction, the Court would be liberal as such in condoning the delay. It has also been held that that the State has to be given certain latitude. The appeal thus being filed by the NHAI can be categorized in the set of cases, whereby Departments work with hand tied behind their back therefore delay which has been caused and the explanation given, is justifiable. Therefore, in view of the above, the delay is condoned and the application stands disposed of. 8. Appeal be registered and be listed for consideration on 24.09.2025. 9. The amount deposited in the Executing Court shall be released subject to furnishing of sureties by the claimants ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 13th August, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge