NHAI versus Bishan Singh & Another Arb. Appeal No. of 2026 14.05.2026 Present: Ms. Shreya, Advocate vice Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2. OMP(M) No.482 of 2025 Reply to the application not filed, despite opportunity granted. Further adjournment for this purpose is not justifiable. As such, the right of the respondents to file reply is closed by the order of the Court. By way of the present application, a prayer has been made to condone 276 days delay, as occurred in filing the accompanying appeal, on the ground that after passing of the award by the learned District Judge Mandi, the file has been dealt with, at various levels, in the office of the applicant, due to which, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Although, reply has not been filed, however, the prayer, so made, in the application has been opposed, by learned Additional Advocate General, by tooth and nail, whereas, respondent No.1, despite service has not opted to put appearance. Considering the stand, as taken in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of Project Director of the applicant, the application is allowed and the delay, as occurred, in filing the main appeal, is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. Arb. Appeal No. of 2026 Be registered. Admit. OMPST No.57638 of 2025 Due to technical defect, learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application, with liberty to file afresh under the appropriate provisions of law. Leave and liberty as sought is granted. The application stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge May 14, 2026 (ps)