STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award dated August 17, 1673, was given by the arbitrator in favour of the State of Haryana. According to the said award, a sum of Rs. 7,008.00 was found to have been paid in excess by the State to the contractor, i.e. the respondent. When the award was filed in Court, objections were filed on behalf of the contractor. The main objection was that the award was not given within a period of four months. Since the time was not extended by the Court, the award was liable to be set aside. Another objection raised was that the arbitrator was guilty of judicial misconduct and there was no proper reference to him. The said objections were contested on behalf of the State of Haryana. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved on behalf of the State of Haryana for extension of time to which reply was filed by the contractor. One of the contention raised therein was that before the plea for extension of time was entertained it would be essential first to decide if the proceedings of arbitration of the present alleged arbitrator are ultra vires or not and then the plea of extension of time be entertained and decided on merits. The learned Subordinate Judge found that since the award was given by the arbitrator after the expiry of four months' period, it was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The application for extention of time was declined on the plea that there was no valid ground or sufficient cause to enlarge the time to file the award in the present case. The other objections raised by the contractor were negatived. Ultimately, vide order dated April 20, 1974, the award was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the order passed by the learned Sabordinate Judge. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Haryana has filed this revision petition in this Court. No one is present on behalf of the respondent in spite of the issuance of the actual date notice.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a fit case where the time should have been extended by the Courts below because the delay was caused by the Courts below because the delay was caused by the conduct of the contractor before the arbitrator. It was he who had been getting dates on one pretext or the other. Moreover, the amount was found to have been paid in excess from the public exchequor. Therefore, on that account as well, the contractor could not be allowed to run away with the said amount. Reliance in this behalf was placed by the learned counsel on State of Punjab v. Hardyal, 1985 AIR(SC) 920

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the relevant record. 1 find that it was the conduct of the contractor-respondent which was responsible for delaying the proceedings before the arbitraror. Therefore a case was made out for extension of time by the Courts below, On the facts and circumstances of this case, they have exercised the discretion arbitrarily without appreciating that the delay was caused by the contractor himself. Besides it is a case where the amount was found to have been paid in excess from the public funds. That being so, the contractor could not be allowed to run away with the said amount on the technical ground when no other fault was found by the Courts below with the award.