D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) I.A. No. 1534 of 2016 This interlocutory application has been preferred for condonation of delay of 2280 days in preferring Arbitration Appeal No. 01 of 2015 preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the arbitration proceedings were conducted by the Government officers. Arbitration award was passed on 11th January, 2007 by the learned Arbitrator, who is Hon 'ble Mr. Justice (Retired) Sri A.K. Prasad, Judge of this Hon 'ble Court. Against this award, application along with delay condonation application was preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 30th June, 2008 with delay of 413 days. This application was preferred before the Sub-Judge-1, Ranchi and that delay application was dismissed because no steps were taken by the State for service of notice nor anybody was present on behalf of the State. This order was passed on 24th November, 2008 in Miscellaneous Case No. 25 of 2008. Against this order, the present Arbitration Appeal No. 01 of 2015 has been preferred with delay of 2280 days.
(3.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially paragraph 6 onwards, there are no reasonable reasons for condonation of delay of 2280 days in preferring Arbitration Appeal No. 01 of 2015. In paragraph 6, it has been mentioned that the Executive Engineer has probably not understood the procedural aspects of the law. In paragraph 7, the reasons mentioned is loss of track of the matter which is not a reasonable ground for condonation of such a huge delay. In paragraph 9 also, ignorance of the officers has been pointed out, which is also not a valid ground for condonation of delay. In paragraph 10, it has been mentioned that the delay is not deliberate, which is also not a valid ground for condonation of delay. Similar are the grounds in subsequent paragraphs also. It has also been mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 13 that the Government officers themselves conducted the arbitration proceeding. This also cannot be a reason for condonation of delay. The Government was never restrained in engaging any lawyer. In paragraph 13, it has been mentioned that the officers themselves were conducting the matter before Sub-Judge-1, Ranchi and lawyer could not remain present before Sub-Judge-1, Ranchi. The Government should have engaged an efficient Advocate. Thus, there is no justifiable reason for condonation of delay of 2280 days in preferring Arbitration Appeal No. 01 of 2015. Moreover, this interlocutory application has been preferred after one year and one month from the date of filing of this Arbitration Appal No. 01 of 2015. Thus, there is continuous lethargic approach on the part of the State.;