1 905.WP-13450-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13450 OF 2026 ARVIND PUNDALIK DHAMNE VERSUS THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER … Advocate for Petitioner : Adv. Sakshi A. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Bondar Uttam Bajirao … CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. By the impugned order dated 28.07.2026, the learned Principal District Judge has condoned the delay of 13 days in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for challenging the award passed by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay indicates that the delay is explained by referring to procedural formalities which were needed to be complied with in order to file the application under Section 34 of the said Act. 2. It also appears that, as against the rate of Rs.2,181/- per square metre determined by the SLAO, the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,521/- per square metre by 2026:BHC-AUG:45899 2 905.WP-13450-2026.doc taking into consideration the ready reckoner rate of Rs.6,000/- per square metre, which, according to the Petitioner, is merely Rs.200/- per square metre, this Court is not inclined to examine at this stage whether the compensation is correctly determined. However, having regard to the fact that the delay is only of 13 days and that arguable points appear to have been raised in the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the impugned order condoning the delay of 13 days does not warrant interference. 3. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, should be slow in interfering with discretionary orders which are impugned before it. An order passed on an application for condonation of delay essentially involves exercise of judicial discretion. In the present case, the delay is only of 13 days and falls well within the outer limit of 30 days prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Considering the short duration of the delay, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ROHIT W. JOSHI JUDGE NAJEEB..