HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 821 of 2025 (M/S) Narayan Singh ….......Petitioner Vs. Project Director, NHAI and Another ..... Respondents Present : Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the petitioner, through video conferencing. Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks directions that the Petition No.90 of 2020, Narayan Singh Vs. Project Director, NHAI (Project Implementation Unit), 5 Teg Bahadur Road, Dehradun and Another, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pending before the court of District Judge, Haridwar (“the case”), may be decided expeditiously. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the last 5 years, the case is pending. It has yet not been decided. 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the case is pending because the notices have not been 2 served to the respondent no.2. The ordersheet has been placed. 5. It is strange. The respondent no.2 is no other person than an officer appointed by the State Government. He could be very well served by the DGC, Civil. Why the matters are delayed for that reason? 6. Be it as it may, cases should be decided expeditiously, in accordance with the priority of the cases and age of the cases in the respective court. This Court may not direct the court concerned to decide the case within any time frame. Every court is conscious of the fact that the matters should be decided as expeditiously as possible. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.03.2025 Ravi Bisht