( 2026:HHC:4268 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP(M) No.438 of 2025 Decided on: 24.02.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh ....Applicants/appellants & another Versus Sonam Hishey ....Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present appeal filed by the appellants-State is barred by 323 days as per Office report, whereas as per the application the appeal is barred by 293 days against the judgment dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure A-2), passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein objections were held to be time barred for 23 days for which the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award dated 31.01.2024 has been dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Counsel for the appellants-State has tried to convince us that the matter would require consideration on merits but we are not inclined to hear the same on merits, keeping in view the gross inaction as such of the State even in appying for the certified copy, which was done after a period of almost ten months on 16.09.2025. 3. The aplication which is being filed is duly supported by the affidavit of the Superintending Engineer, the sufficient cause is sought to be made out that no intimation was received regarding the decision of the learned Single Judge from the Office of the Advocate General and the deparment only came to know when the execution petition was filed in July, 2025. We are appalled that the said cause has been sought to be made out as it is the duty of the Department to keep in touch with the Office of the Advocate General and not the Advocate General’s duty to inform the Deparmtent when the matter is listed. 4. Even after the knowledge of the Execution Petition in July, 2025, the certified copy of the judgment was not applied for till 16.09.2025, though, the Officer as such in the application has averred that the matter had been forwarded to the Govenment on 30.07.2025 to opine upon the matter and the Department had given the opinion which was duly conveyed on 19.08.2025. 3 Resultantly, the opinion was received in the Office of Engineer-in- Chief on 26.08.2025. Thus, only after the period of almost 20 days, the copy was applied for and delivered accordingly on 22.09.2025 which had led to the filing of the present petition thereafter on 24.09.2025. 5. It is not disputed that the Arbitrator has created a financial liability of an amount of Rs.66,35,351/- on the appellants, which was subject matter of consideration of the Award and thereafter the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was initiated. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge had also dismissed the same on the ground of delay of 23 days and there has further been inaction on the part of the appellants, as such delay of over 300 days has occurred in filing the present appeal. 6. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another (2010) 5 SCC 459, wherein it has been held that in absence of any plausible and tangible explanation for long delay, there is no valid reason to condone the delay. 7. In Chief Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, it 4 has been held that liberal concession may have to be adopted, but the department cannot take advantage of its own impersonal machinery and they have to perform the duty with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is an exception. 8. Reliance can thus be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, wherein it has been held that vesting of certain rights on litigants have to be kept in mind before condoning the delay. 9. The life span of each legal remedy has been expounded in B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy 5 2025:HHC:36853 (2012) 12 SCC 693 and further elaborated In Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (2013) 12 SCC 649. 10. In such circumstances, keeping in view the law which stands settled and the Apex Court has time and again deprecated the actions of the State as such in filing belated appeals at its own convenience to deny the benefits of the Award which was passed way-back on 31.01.2024 regarding the dispute of the running bills of the work which was completed on 30.10.2013. Therefore, it would be a travesty of justice as such 5 to allow the applications and expect the Contractor to contest on merits who is seeking his legal dues in accordance with law. 11. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reasons as such to condone the delay and accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed in the aforesaid terms, so also, the pending application(s), if any, are disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 24th February, 2026 (Tarun/Munish Thakur)