Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.)THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -State of Rajasthan under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 9.5.2013 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Court below') in arbitration case No. 44/2008, whereby the Court below has dismissed the application of the appellant seeking condonation of delay as well as the objections filed under Sec. 34 of the Act against the award dated 11.8.2006 passed by. Sole Arbitrator in this case, appears that an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent being No. 196/1994 -95 in respect of the work of renewal by 13 MM/20MM with paver finisher on various roads under PWD District Division North Jaipur. However, certain disputes, having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to the Sole Arbitrator, who after hearing the parties, passed the award on 11.8.2006. The said award was challenged by the appellant by filing objections under Sec. 34 of the Act on 7.7.2007. However, the said objections having been filed after the prescribed time limit, the appellant had filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The said application along with the objections have been dismissed by the Court below vide the impugned order dated 9.5.2013.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the appellant -State of Rajasthan has submitted that due to the procedural delay in the department, some delay had occurred in filing the objections which should have been condoned by the Court below in the interest of justice. The said submission of learned counsel Mr. Barath cannot be accepted in view of the specific time limit prescribed in Sec. 34(3) of the said Act, for challenging the award. The position of law as regards non -applicability of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to Sec. 34(3) of the said Act, has also been well settled by the Apex Court in catena of decisions, to cite a few are in case of UOI vs. Popular Construction Co., : 2001 (8) SCC 470; in case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr., : 2010 (12) SCG 210 etc. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below.
However, before parting it is required to be observed that many a times, the awards made by the arbitrators involving huge financial implications on the state exchequer are not being challenged within the prescribed time limit by the concerned departments, and many good cases are lost by the government in the Courts of law only because of the lapse either deliberate or otherwise, on the part of the concerned officers or the counsels. The State Government is expected to take extra care to see that the awards of arbitrators worth challenging are challenged in the Courts within the prescribed time limit, and to take necessary actions against the errant officers and counsels as found necessary.

(3.)COPY of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as Principal Secretary, PWD, Jaipur for their perusal. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is according dismissed.