State appeal dismissed 300 day delay HP
Shimla, Feb 27,
Highlighting judicial intolerance towards administrative delays, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State government in a Rs 66.35 lakh arbitration liability case, citing “gross inaction” and an unexplained delay of over 300 days. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi refused to condone the delay and declined to examine the matter on merits.
The case arose from an arbitration award dated January 31, 2024, which imposed a financial liability of Rs 66,35,351 on the State in connection with pending dues for work completed as far back as October 2013. The State had earlier challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but that petition was also dismissed by a Single Judge on account of a delay of 23 days. The present appeal before the Division Bench was filed with a delay exceeding 300 days, which became the central issue in the proceedings.
State appeal dismissed 300 day delay HP/ Also read:HP High court slaps Rs 50,000 cost on State for delay, seeks status report as ordinance nears lapse
Taking a stern view of the State’s conduct, the High Court observed that it was “not inclined to hear the same on merits, keeping in view the gross inaction as such of the State.” The Bench expressed particular concern over the fact that the State took nearly ten months just to apply for a certified copy of the earlier judgment. Rejecting the explanation that the department was not informed by the Advocate General’s office, the court made it clear that “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 Department when the matter is listed.”
The court also scrutinised the timeline presented by the State, noting that even after becoming aware of the execution proceedings in July 2025, there was further delay in processing the matter internally and eventually applying for the certified copy only on September 16, 2025. This sequence, according to the Bench, reflected continued negligence rather than any justified administrative delay. The judges further relied on settled legal principles and Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that condonation of delay is an exception and cannot be granted in the absence of a “plausible and tangible explanation.”
In a strong remark reflecting the court’s concern for fairness, the Bench stated that allowing such delayed appeals would amount to injustice for the contractor seeking legitimate dues, observing that “it would be a travesty of justice… to allow the applications and expect the contractor to contest on merits who is seeking his legal dues.”
Concluding that no sufficient cause had been made out, the High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal itself. “We do not find any plausible reasons as such to condone the delay… the appeal is also dismissed,” the Bench ordered.
The ruling sends a clear message on accountability in government litigation, reinforcing that procedural lapses and bureaucratic delays cannot be used to indefinitely stall financial liabilities arising from arbitration awards.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
