2025:HHC:7788 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4351 of 2025 Decided on: 26.03.2025 Kamlesh Sood … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sipahiya, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No. 1. : Mrs. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned Award No.1 dated 27.06.2016 in its entirety as being null and void; ii Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the concerned Respondents to institute fresh acquisition proceedings as envisaged under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the procedure of determination of compensation amount strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, taking into account the Petitioner's entitlement to fair compensation, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:7788 rehabilitation and resettlement benefits and infrastructure amenities under the First, Second, and Third Schedules, and applying the mandatory multiplier of 2.00; iii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central government on 22.03.2012 for disputes arising from an Award No. 1 dated 27.06.2016 as the alleged preemptive appointment of an Arbitrator in anticipation of to disputes relating to an Award No. 1 dated 27.06.2016, is wholly non-est and lacks inherent jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Petitioner's right to reference arises only after the passing of the award; iv. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the concerned Respondents to initiate a proper Arbitration Mechanism in accordance with Section 3(G)(5) & (6) of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the acquisition proceedings are not quashed, ensuring that the Petitioner's claim for enhanced compensation is fairly and impartially adjudicated; v. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shimla, dismissing the Petitioner's application for condonation of delay and the petition under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956; vi. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the concerned Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for enhancement of compensation on merits by either referring the dispute to a legally and validly appointed Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, read with Section 3G(6) and the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, or appointing an 3 2025:HHC:7788 independent Arbitrator afresh, in accordance with law, for adjudication of the Petitioner's claim; vii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the concerned Respondents to release the entire land from acquisition and to follow the procedure of acquisition of land as envisaged under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the procedure of determination of compensation amount as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in letter and spirit; and viii. Grant just and proper reliefs in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.” 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the prayers made in the writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is grossly hit by delay and laches. The petitioner is assailing the award that was passed on 27.06.2016. The first relief prayed for in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned award dated 27.06.2016. There is no plausible explanation given in the petition by learned Counsel for the petitioner as to what has taken the petitioner almost nine years in approaching the Court for assailing the award. This Court is not going into the issue per se whether the petitioner can seek these reliefs from this Court. The 4 2025:HHC:7788 very fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after a considerable delay which has not been satisfactorily explained, this Court is of the considered view that there is occasion for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 26, 2025 (narender)