Patna High Court – Orders
The State Of Bihar And Ors vs M/S Komal Construction Chhawani on 1 May, 2025
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.9 of 2017
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, 'Vishweshwaraiya
Bhawan' Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (South Bihar Wing) Road Construction Department,
'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan' Bailey
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Magadh
Road Circle, Gaya.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division 01
Aurangabad.
6. The Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Sub Division
No. 01, Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Rambriksha Singh, Partner Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh Son of Late
Ram Briksha Singh, Resident of Jaiprakash Nagar, Karma Road, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 203 of 2017
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Chief Engineer N.H. Wing, Road Construction Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Circle,
Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Division,
Biharsharif.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Jai Maa Bhawani Construction Pvt. Ltd. Managing Director Sri Lalit
Kumar Singh S/o Bhishm Narayan Singh R/o Devdha, P.S. - Deep Nagar,
Distt. - Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 208 of 2017
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
2/66
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Vishweshwaraiya
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 15
3. The Chief Engineer South wing, Road Construction Department,
Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna - 15
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Works Circle,
Ara Bhojpur.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division,
Dehri-on-Sone.
6. Mr. Brindawan Rai, the Assistant Engineer, S.D.O., Road Construction
Department, Road Sub-Division, Sasaram, Rohtas.
7. Md. Sadik Ali, the Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Division, Dehri-on-Sone.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Birendra Prasad Singh through its working partner Mr. Devesh Kumar,
Son of Sri Birendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village + P.O. - Barki Mahuli
Via Takia Bazar, P.S. - Karahgar, District - Rohtas Sasaram, Correspondence
Address - Mohalla - New Bank Colony, Faizal Ganj, Kaushalya Kutir, P.O.+
P.S. - Sasaram, District - Rohtas Sasaram.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 225 of 2017
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction
Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Engineer-in- Chief, Road Construction Department, 'Vishweswaraiya
Bhawan', Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (N.H. Wing), Road Construction Department,
'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Circle,
'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan', Bailey Road, Patna
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Division No.-
2, Biharsharif (Nalanda).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Shri Shailendra Kumar Akela son of Late Keshwar Prasad resident of
Quamruddinganj, P.O.- Biharsharif, P.S.- Laheri, Muradpur, District- Nalanda
Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 258 of 2017
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
3/66
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Engineer-in-chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar,
'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan' Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, National Highway
Wing, Campus of 'Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan' Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, National
Highway Circle, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, National Highway
Division, Gulzarbagh, Patna.
6. The Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Sub Division
No. 1, Gulzarbagh, Patna.
7. The Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Section,
Gulzarbagh-1, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. M/s Maruti Enterprises, Gudari, Rajendra Chowk, Hazipur, Vaishali-844101
through one of its partner namely, Niket Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Ashwani
Kumar Verma, resident of Mohalla- Pokhara, Police Station- Town, District-
Vaishali.
2. The Branch Manager, Bank of India, Hajipur Branch, Hazipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 5 of 2018
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, South Bihar (Traffic) Wing, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Bhojpur
Road Circle, Ara.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Sahabad Road
Division, Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Shaligram Singh prop. Sri Shaligram Singh, S/o Late Jadunandan Singh
R/o Deokali, P.S. Daudnagar, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 194 of 2018
======================================================
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
4/66
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Harding Road, Bihar Patna-800001
2. The Engineer in Chief, (North) Water Resources Department, Sinchai
Bhawan, Harding Road, Bihar Patna
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur
4. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Anchal
Bhagalpur
5. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Flood Control
Division, Naugachia, Distt. Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Dilip Kumar Munka, son of Late Navrang Lal Munka, resident of Ward No.
16, PO+PS Naugachia, Distt. Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 9 of 2019
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Sinchai Bhawan, Bihar Patna-800001
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Dept. Dehri Rohtas
3. The Superintending Engineer, Durgawati Construction Circle Bhitari Bandh
Camp Chenari, Distt. Rohtas, Sasaram
4. The Executive Engineer, Durgawati Right Bank Canal Division, Chenari,
Rohtas Sasaram
The Deputy Director, Quality Control Division, Dehri, Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Komal Construction Chhawani Mohalla Ward No. 1 Bhabhua (Kaimur)
through its Partner Komal Singh Son of late Bachnu Singh Resident of
Village Ward No. 1 Chhawani Mohalla, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur,
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 20 of 2019
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Vishwesharraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. West
Division, Gulzarbagh, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
5/66
M/s Umesh Kumar and Com, Prop. Sri Umesh Kumar Roy Son of Raja
Prasad Roy Resident of Ranjan Path, Near Basudeo Palace, Bailey Road, P.S.
Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVISION No. 21 of 2019
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the secretary, Road Construction Department,
Vishwesharraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Chief Engineer (N.H) Road Construction Department, Vishwesharraiya
Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna Bihar
3. The Superintending Engineer, Road construction Department, N.H.Circle
Patna Bihar
4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H.Division
Gulzarbagh, Patna Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
M/s Saran construction, Prop. Sri Triguna Nand Singh S/o Late Baldeo Singh
R/O Laxmipur, Kakadia P.S- Dighwara, Saran at Chapra
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 9 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.B. Prasad Yadav, AAG-11
Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11
Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 203 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13
Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 208 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 225 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
6/66
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 258 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Prakash, GA 13
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 5 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11
Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 194 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ac To Aag 4
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Aman Raj, Advocate
Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 9 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to Aag 4
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ram Nath Singh Yadav, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 20 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11
Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVISION No. 21 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 11
Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
Mr. Ramashray Ray, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
32 01-05-2025
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG-11, Mr.
Amit Prakash, GA-13 assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA-
13, Mr. Sanjay Kumar AC to AAG-4 and Mr. Dinesh Maharaj,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Narayan,
learned senior advocate, Mr. Manish Sahay, Mr. Ramnath Singh
Yadav, learned counsels for the opposite parties.
2. These Revision applications have been filed against
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
7/66
the separate Awards passed on different dates by the Bihar
Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Arbitration Tribunal’) in different Reference
Cases.
3. All these Civil Revision Applications have been
filed much after statutory period of limitation and in the
aforesaid revision applications separate interlocutory application
has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the Civil
Revision application which have been heard separately and are
being disposed of by this common order.
Re:- I.A. No. 161 of 2017 in C.R. No. 09 of 2017
4. This application has been filed for condoning the
delay of 889 days (2 years 5 months 6 days) in filing the instant
application which has been filed on 12.01.2017 against the
Award dated 06.05.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 85 of
2010.
5. The remedy against the Award passed by the
Arbitration Tribunal is provided under Section 13 of the Bihar
Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008
whereby any party aggrieved by the Award may file Revision
Application within three months from the date of the Award.
6. The said Award has been communicated by the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
8/66
Secretary of the Arbitration Tribunal on 25.05.2014.
7. The instant interlocutory application comprises of 8
paragraphs but it does not disclose the sufficient cause of delay
for filing the instant Civil Revision application. Later on, a
supplementary affidavit in limitation petition has been filed on
16.05.2017 in which the petitioners have tried to explain the
delay caused in filing the Civil Revision application.
8. It is contended that after the knowledge of the
Award, the Superintending Engineer vide its letter no. 587 dated
05.06.2014 directed the Executive Engineer to ensure
compliance of the Award. In compliance of the said direction,
the Executive Engineer vide its letter no. 1093 dated 24.06.2014
requested the Superintending Engineer for guideline with
respectful allotment of funds for the same. The Superintending
Engineer requested the then Engineer-in-Chief to provide
allotment of funds. The Executive Engineer was informed about
the aforesaid facts vide memo no. 882 dated 26.07.2014. It is
further contended that the then Engineer-in-Chief directed the
Executive Engineer to assail the Award passed in Reference
Case No. 85 of 2010. The Executive Engineer on 28.08.2014
was directed by the Superintending Engineer to provide the
grounds of revision against Award, if any, which was received in
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
9/66
the office of Executive Engineer on 03.09.2014. The Executive
Engineer was again directed on 13.09.2014 to provide the
grounds of revision against the Award under challenge. It is
further contended that the Executive Engineer requested to
provide the allotment of fund vide letter no. 90 dated
16.01.2015. The then Engineer-in-Chief vide letter dated
29.01.2015 asked to provide the Award along with claim
petition and counter affidavit filed in Reference case which was
provided on 23.02.2015 and thereafter file of this case was sent
to the Law Department on 14.05.2015 which was returned on
10.07.2015 with some queries. The queries of the Law
Department was explained by the Executive Engineer vide letter
no. 1928 dated 03.11.2015 which was received in the
department on 26.11.2015. It is further pleaded that vide letter
no. 1747 dated 08.03.2016, the Executive Engineer was directed
to provide certified copy of Award which was provided by him
vide letter dated 11.03.2016 and thereafter on 29.03.2016 the
file of this case was again sent to the Law Department but again
the file was returned on 22.04.2016 with further queries. The
said file was produced on 18.05.2016 before the Secretary of the
Department to endorse the file to the Law Department.
9. On perusal of the said file, the Secretary of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
10/66
Department approved to file revision against the Award. The
Executive Engineer was directed to provide statement of facts
for filing the Revision Application. Whereafter Executive
Engineer was provided statement of facts by the Road
Construction Department and thereafter on 11.11.2016, the said
file was again sent to Law Department for filing revision
application against the Award. The said file was sent by the Law
Department to the office of the Advocate General for filing
Revision petition. It was marked to AAG-11 for filing Revision
Application thereafter, the Revision Application as well as
interlocutory application for condoning the delay in filing the
application was filed on 12.01.2017 before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that there is no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioners
rather the delay has occurred because of some necessary official
formalities which consumed time due to reason beyond the
control of the petitioners. The petitioners should not be
penalized for the fault of the individual. Reliance has been
placed on the judgment in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (d)
through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in
(2023) 10 SCC 531.
11. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
11/66
Court has also referred the case of State of Manipur & Ors. Vs.
Koting Lamkang reported in (2019) 10 SCC 408 and quoted
paragraph nos. 7 & 8 of the said judgment which reads as
under:-
“7. But while concluding as above, it
was necessary for the Court to also be
conscious of the bureaucratic delay
and the slow pace in reaching a
government decision and the routine
way of deciding whether the State
should prefer an appeal against a
judgment adverse to it. Even while
observing that the law of limitation
would harshly affect the party, the
Court felt that the delay in the appeal
filed by the State, should not be
condoned.
8. Regard should be had in similar
such circumstances to the impersonal
nature of the Government’s
functioning where individual officers
may fail to act responsibly. This in
turn, would result in injustice to the
institutional interest of the State. If the
appeal filed by the State are lost for
individual default, those who are at
fault, will not usually be individually
affected.”
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
12/66
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court considering the aforesaid
judgment observed that an exercise of jurisdiction does, at
times, call for liberal and justice oriented approach by the courts
where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden
forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State
being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as
not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and
validity of an order on lower court and thereby secure unholy
gains, can hardly be ignored.
13. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party
vehemently submitted that the learned Arbitration Tribunal after
hearing both the parties, in detail, has passed an Award dated
06.05.2014 in favour of the opposite party in presence of
learned counsel for the petitioners. Immediately thereafter, the
opposite party submitted an application before the Executive
Engineer along with a copy of the Award and requested him to
make payments as per the Award. In compliance of said Award,
the Executive Engineer requested the Superintending Engineer
on 24.06.2014 to make allotment of fund so that payment could
be made to the opposite party. The Superintending Engineer has
asked Executive Engineer to send the demand letter for sanction
of fund in prescribed format. The Executive Engineer again
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
13/66
send the demand letter to the Superintending Engineer in
prescribed format on 06.09.2014. It is further contended that
Superintending Engineer vide its letter dated 29.09.2014 has
directed the Executive Engineer to send an inquiry report in
prescribed format and details of calculation of interest so that
further action be taken for obtaining approval of Law
Department and for allotment of fund. Again, the
Superintending Engineer had requested the then Engineer-in-
Chief to sanction the amount, as the enquiry report in prescribed
format is being sent for obtaining approval of Law Department.
It is further submitted that after the repeated request made by
the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, the
funds has not been allocated for payment to the opposite party
in terms of the Award. Lastly, the Executive Engineer vide letter
dated 01.01.2015, requested the Secretary of Department to
make allotment of fund so that payment could be made to the
opposite party. Even thereafter, no payment was made to the
opposite party for want of allotment of fund by the higher
authority of the department. It is further contended that after
great persuasion by the opposite party, the Executive Engineer
vide letter dated 11.05.2016 had requested the Engineer in-Chief
to make allotment of required fund. Despite the request for
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
14/66
allotment of fund, the Engineer in-Chief vide letter dated
09.06.2016 had directed the Executive Engineer to file revision
application before this Court with a petition for condonation of
delay, if the grounds for the same exists. If no revision
application could be filed, then send a reasoned and clear report
from the same.
14. It is further submitted by the learned senior
counsel that the petitioner has filed the present revision
application just to frustrate the claim of the opposite party.
There is no plausible explanation for condoning the delay in
filing the limitation petition. Moreover, it has not been stated
that when the advice of the Law Department was received by
the petitioner and no sufficient cause for the delay has been
pleaded in filing the said revision application.
Re:- I.A. No. 7500 of 2017 in C.R. No. 203 of 2017.
15. This application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 477 days (1 year 3
months 22 days) in filing the revision application from the date
of Award dated 01.03.2016 (limitation expired on 01.06.2016
during summer vacation). Stamp reporter has calculated period
of limitation from 1st day of opening of the Court i.e.
20.06.2016. The Civil Revision application has been filed on 11
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
15/66
October, 2017 against the Award dated 01.03.2016 passed in
Reference Case No. 115 of 2012 by the learned Arbitration
Tribunal.
16. The requisition for obtaining certified copy of
Award dated 01.03.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 115 of
2012 was filed on 02.08.2017 which was supplied on
08.08.2017.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the Award dated 01.03.2016 passed in Reference Case No.
115 of 2012 was communicated to the Secretary, Road
Construction Department Bihar, Patna, where it was received on
17.03.2016. The said Award was also communicated to the
Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna
vide letter no. 21.03.2016 for its compliance.
18. The Executive Engineer also informed the
Superintending Engineer for necessary guideline in response to
the said letter. The Superintending Engineer on 07.04.2016
sought necessary guideline from the Engineer in-Chief, Road
Construction Department. In response to the said memo no. 362,
the Engineer in-Chief cum-Additional Commissioner cum-
Special Secretary, Road Construction Department Bihar, Patna
directed the Executive Engineer to make available grounds of
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
16/66
Revision Application to file Revision Application against the
Award dated 01.03.2016. The then Superintending Engineer
again directed the Executive Engineer on 13.05.2016 to make
available grounds to file revision application against the said
Award. In compliance of the said letter dated 13.05.2016, the
Executive Engineer made available the grounds to the
Superintending Engineer. After perusing said grounds, it was
found unsatisfactory and, as such, the Executive Engineer was
directed to make available grounds after getting it drafted by
empaneled Advocate of the department vide letter dated
25.05.2016. It is further contended that the entire file of the case
as well as copy of the Award dated 01.03.2016 was made
available to the Panel Advocate of the Department, who
received the same on 25.05.2016. It is further alleged that the
Advocate of the department kept the file pending for long and
did not return the same after drafting of grounds of revision and,
as such vide letters dated 03.11.2016, 18.01.2017, 30.01.2017,
13.02.2017, 27.02.2017 and 15.04.2017, the Executive Engineer
requested him to return the file. On 30.04.2017, the concerned
Lawyer returned the file along with grounds of Revision
Application as well as limitation petition and stay petition. It is
further contended that after receiving the said file, the Executive
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
17/66
Engineer sent the said file to the Superintending Engineer vide
letter dated 31.07.2017. The Superintending Engineer sent the
said file to the Chief Engineer, who, in turn, sent the said file to
the Engineer in-Chief cum-Additional Engineer cum- Special
Secretary Road Construction Department on 18.08.2017 for its
approval. On 11.09.2017, the Engineer in-Chief approved for
filing Revision application against the said Award and sent the
file to the Law Department on 15.09.2017. On the same day,
Law Department gave the opinion for filing Revision
Application against the said Award and the file was sent to the
learned Advocate General on 18.09.2017 which was received in
the office of learned Advocate General on 19.09.2017. It is
further contended that the learned Advocate General marked the
file to the concerned Law Officer for filing Revision Application
on 20.09.2017. Thereafter, the concerned Law Officer filed
instant Revision Application on 11.10.2017 along with
limitation petition as well as stay petition. It is submitted that
there is no deliberate or willful delay or laches on the part of the
petitioners in filing the instant revision application rather the
delay caused on account of procedural formalities.
19. Upon notice, the sole opposite party appeared and
filed his rejoinder to the limitation petition bearing I.A. No. 02
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
18/66
of 2017. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party submitted
that the Revision Application has been filed on 11.10.2017
against the Award dated 01.03.2016 passed in Reference Case
No. 115 of 2012. The said Award was passed on 01.03.2016 in
presence of learned counsel for the petitioner who had
knowledge about the passing of the Award. It is further
submitted that the explanation for condonation of huge delay
does not contain acceptable and plausible reason. It appears
from the pleading of the limitation petition that the petitioners
have failed to explain the delay. They have also failed to give
plausible and acceptable reason for the delay in filing the
Revision application. It is admitted fact that the Award was
pronounced in the presence of learned counsel for the
petitioners. The instant revision application has been filed on
11.10.2017 after 477 days (1 year 3 months 22 days). The
petitioner has failed to give sufficient explanation for
condonation of delay in filing the instant Civil Revision
application. It is apparent from the limitation petition, the Award
dated 01.03.2016 was communicated through Secretary of the
Arbitration Tribunal which was received on 17.03.2016. The file
of this instant case was sent to the empaneled Advocate on
25.05.2016 and on the same day he received the file but the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
19/66
instant revision application has been filed on 11.10.2017. It is
further submitted that condonation of delay is an exception and
should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government
departments. It is also submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court have already held that “The government
departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they
perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as
an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law
shelters everyone under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few”. It is held that the claim on
account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic
methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in
view of the modern technologies being used and available. The
law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the
Government. It is further submitted that the petitioner again
acted leisurely and claim condonation of delay as a matter of
fact only because the petitioners are the officers of the
Government department. The petition for condonation of delay
is completely devoid of any merit without any plausible
explanation.
Re: I.A. No. 7717 of 2017 in Civil Revision No. 208
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
20/66
of 2017
20. This interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning of delay of 8
months 22 days (date of Award dated 25.10.2016 and the date of
filing is 17.10.2017) in filing the Civil Revision application. The
date of filing of requisition for certified copy of Award is
16.10.2017 and the same was supplied on the same day.
21. The instant civil revision application has been
filed against the Award dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned
Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 152 of 2014. The
remedy against the Award passed by the Tribunal is provided
under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 whereby any party aggrieved by
the Award may file revision application within three months
from the date of Award.
22. From perusal of the averments made in the
limitation petition, it appears that vide letter No. 736 dated
15.11.2016, under the signature of the Secretary of the
Arbitration Tribunal Award dated 25.10.2016 passed in
Reference Case No. 152 of 2014 was communicated which was
received on 01.12.2016. After receipt of the Award, the
petitioners for the first time came to know about the Award
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
21/66
dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Arbitration Tribunal in
Reference Case No. 152 of 2014. It was brought to the notice to
the empaneled Advocate by the Executive Engineer to prepare
statement of facts to file revision application against the said
Award. It is contended that the concerned Advocate of the
Department prepared the statement of facts and returned the file
to the Executive Engineer on 28.07.2017, who, in turn, sent the
statement of facts to the Superintending Engineer on 31.07.2017
for its approval. The Superintending Engineer thereafter
forwarded the statement of facts to the Chief Engineer, Patna for
approval. The Chief Engineer forwarded the statement of facts
to the Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum
Special Secretary, Road Construction Department Bihar, Patna
vide letter dated 18.08.2017 for its approval. The Engineer-in-
Chief gave an approval on 11.09.2017 and the file was then sent
to the Law Department which was received there on 15.09.2017.
The Law Department after giving its approval on 15.09.2017
sent the file to the learned Advocate General on 18.09.2017 for
filing Civil Revision. Thereafter, the present revision application
along with limitation petition and stay petition was filed on
17.10.2017. There is no deliberate laches on the part of the
petitioners, rather, some delay has occurred in completing
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
22/66
necessary formalities.
23. Upon summon, the sole opposite party has
appeared and filed counter affidavit in the limitation matter.
24. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party has
submitted that the averments made in the limitation petition are
vague, misleading and incorrect. It is admitted fact that the
Award dated 25.10.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 152 of
2014 was delivered in presence of both the parties. The
Petitioners cannot deny that they had no knowledge about such
Award dated 25.10.2016 before 01.12.2016. The Secretary of
Arbitration Tribunal sent the Award dated 25.10.2016 passed in
Reference Case No. 152 of 2014 for its compliance. It appears
from the record that the requisition for obtaining certified copy
of the same Award was filed on 16.10.2017 much after expiry of
limitation period and the same was delivered on 16.10.2017.
The petitioners have also failed to give the reason for the delay
in obtaining certified copy while the said Award was passed on
25.10.2016 in presence of the petitioners. It is also contended
that the petitioners have not given plausible explanation for the
delay and the petitioners have also failed to annex the required
documents in support of the averments made in the limitation
petition. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioners were not serious
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
23/66
about filing of the present revision application within limitation
period. There is no plausible explanation for delay in the said
limitation petition. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, the limitation petition may be dismissed for the ends of
justice.
I.A. No. 9374 of 2017 in Civil Revision No. 258 of
2017
25. This interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1
year 1 month & 3 days in filing Civil Revision No. 258 of 2017.
26. This Civil Revision application has been filed on
20th December, 2017 against the Award dated 17.08.2016 passed
in Reference Case No. 59 of 2015 by the learned Arbitration
Tribunal. The limitation expired on 17.11.2016. However this
Civil Revision application has been filed after 1 year 1 month &
3 days.
27. From the perusal of the averments made in the
limitation petition, it appears that the Award was passed by the
learned Tribunal on 17.08.2016 which was duly received by the
Petitioners on 07.09.2016 sent by the Secretary of the
Arbitration Tribunal on 06.09.2016. The main plea explaining
the delay is based upon the time consumed in movement of the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
24/66
file at different stages. It is contended that on 14.09.2016, the
Superintending Engineer sent the file to the Chief Engineer for
guidelines in view of letter dated 05.09.2016 of Executive
Engineer and in turn, the Engineer-in-Chief vide letter dated
23.09.2016 sent the file to the Executive Engineer. The
Executive Engineer sent the file to the panel Advocate of the
Department for preparing the ground of appeal/revision for
filing revision application. The said panel lawyer returned the
file to the Executive Engineer on 03.10.2016 along with the
grounds of revision application. The Executive Engineer sent
the drafted copy of ground for revision to the Superintending
Engineer vide letter dated 14.10.2016 for filing the revision
application before this Court. The approval for filing of revision
application was sought by the Superintending Engineer on
24.10.2017 by the Chief Engineer. On 15.12.2016, the Chief
Engineer directed the Executive Engineer to obtain the certified
copy of the impugned Award and send the same. In compliance
of the said direction, the Executive Engineer applied requisition
for obtaining certified copy of the said Award on 06.12.2016.
The said Award was supplied on 07.12.2016. It is further
pleaded that due to procedural formalities, the limitation period
for filing of revision application has elapsed. The Executive
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
25/66
Engineer sent the file along with limitation petition to the
Superintending Engineer on 07.11.2017, who sent the file to the
Chief Engineer on 11.11.2017. The Chief Engineer sent the file
to Engineer-in-Chief for approval who gave the approval on
07.12.2017 and on the same day, the file was sent to the
Principal Secretary of the Department. The Principal Secretary
forwarded the file to the Law Department for filing revision on
the same day. Thereafter, the said file was sent to the office of
the learned Advocate General on 13.12.2017. The learned
Advocate General marked the file to the concerned Law Officer
for filing revision application on 15.12.2017. Soon thereafter,
the revision application along with limitation and stay petition
was filed on 20th December, 2017. It is further contended that
there is no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioners rather
the delay has occurred due to some necessary official
formalities.
28. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and O.P.
No. 1 has filed counter affidavit in limitation petition. It is
pleaded that the petitioners have not come before this Court
with clean hand because they have failed to give acceptable and
cogent reason for delay. From perusal of the entire pleadings of
the limitation petition, it appears that they have failed to give
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
26/66
plausible and acceptable explanation of delay for filing the
instant revision application. It is further submitted that all the
authorities concerned were aware that the limitation period for
filing this revision application was only three months from the
date on which the Award is made, despite that after about eight
(8) months, i.e. on 15.12.2016, the Chief Engineer directed the
Executive Engineer to obtain the certified copy for filing the
civil revision. The limitation period was expired on 17.11.2016.
It is apparent from the limitation application that the petitioners
failed to furnish acceptable and cogent explanation for delay in
filing the revision application. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this limitation petition is fit to be dismissed for
the ends of justice.
Re: I.A. No. 8105 of 2017 in Civil Revision No. 225
of 2017
29. This interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 2
years 11 months 18 days in filing the Civil Revision application.
30. This Civil Revision application has been filed on
09.11.2017 against the Award dated 21.08.2014 passed in
Reference Case No. 38 of 2013 by the learned Arbitration
Tribunal whereby the claim of the opposite party for payment of
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
27/66
interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum with effect from
13.09.2009 till 12.09.2012 over an amount of Rs. 2,45,777/-
only as also for cost was allowed.
31. In the light of the aforesaid Award, the opposite
party filed representation on 08.09.2014 to the Executive
Engineer, NH Division-2, Road Construction Department,
Biharsharif and requested to make payment in view of Award
dated 21.08.2014. It is further pleaded that the Executive
Engineer had made a request to Chief Engineer to release the
fund so that payment may be made to the opposite party in
compliance of order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal. In
response to that the Chief Engineer wrote a letter to the
Executive Engineer on 05.11.2014 to make available grounds of
review for filing the review petition against the said Award. The
same was made available to the Superintending Engineer for
filing review petition on 29.12.2014 and the same was sent to
the Chief Engineer on 12.01.2015 for its approval. The Chief
Engineer sent the file to the Engineer-in-Chief on 04.02.2015,
who authorised the Executive Engineer on 20.03.2015 to file
review petition before the Arbitration Tribunal. Soon thereafter,
the review petition was filed on 22.04.2015 before the
Arbitration Tribunal which was dismissed on 27.04.2016.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
28/66
Thereafter, the Chief Engineer directed for filing revision
application against the Award dated 21.08.2014 as well as order
passed in Review case no. 4 of 2015 dated 27.04.2016. On the
request of the Executive Engineer, the empaneled Advocate
prepared grounds of revision for filing civil revision. The same
was forwarded to Superintending Engineer. The Superintending
Engineer sent the file to Chief Engineer on 07.12.2016 for its
approval. It is further contended that the Chief Engineer directed
Executive Engineer on 29.12.2016 to obtain certified copy of
Award dated 21.08.2014 and order dated 27.04.2016 passed in
the aforesaid review petition. However, the Executive Engineer
superannuated from his service on 31.01.2017 and the present
Executive Engineer took charge on 23.02.2017. It is also
pleaded that after the knowledge of the said matter, the present
Executive Engineer obtained certified copy from Arbitration
Tribunal and sent it to Superintending Engineer on 13.07.2007.
The Chief Engineer sent the file to Engineer-in-Chief on
14.07.2017 for its approval, who, in turn, sent the file to
Principal Secretary of the Department on 19.07.2017. The
Principal Secretary made some query and returned the file
which was again submitted on 04.10.2017. The Principal
Secretary gave approval on 05.10.2017 and sent it to the Law
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
29/66
Department for opinion/advice. The Law Department gave
permission to file revision application and sent it to the office of
learned Advocate General on 10.10.2017. Soon thereafter, on
09.11.2017, the aforesaid revision application was filed. There is
no deliberate or willful delay or laches on the part of the
petitioners in filing the revision application rather the delay has
been caused on account of procedural formalities and prayed for
condoning the delay in filing the civil revision application.
32. On notice in the limitation matter, the opposite
party appeared and filed his counter affidavit and vehemently
opposed the limitation petition. It is contended that the
petitioners have failed to explain the delay. They have also
failed to give plausible and acceptable explanation of huge
delay in filing the present civil revision application. It is further
contended that the remedy against the Award passed by the
Arbitration Tribunal is provided under Section 13 of the Bihar
Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008
whereby any party aggrieved by the Award may file revision
application within three months from the date of Award. The
instant revision application has been filed on 09.11.2017 while
the limitation expired on 21.11.2014 after delay of 2 years 11
months 18 days (wrongly noted as 3 years 2 months 19 days). It
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
30/66
is further pleaded that the petitioners have not filed any
paper/documents in support of their averments. It is submitted
that the petitioners themselves admit that on 08.09.2014, they
have got knowledge about the Award dated 21.08.2014 and
despite that they applied for obtaining certified copy of the
Award on 10.07.2017 which was supplied to them on
13.07.2017 and the revision application has been filed on
09.11.2017 before this Court. It is apparent from the pleadings
of the petitioners that they were fully aware about the Award
dated 21.08.2014. In such view of the matter, the petitioners
have failed to furnish acceptable and cogent explanation for
delay in filing the civil revision application. The opposite party
has relied upon the decision in the case of Postmaster General
Vs. Living Media India Ltd. Reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and
in the case of State of U.P. v. Amar Nath Yadav reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 422. It is vehemently submitted that the State and
its officers cannot be treated differently while considering the
prayer for condonation of delay and prayed for dismissal of the
limitation petition.
Re: I.A. No. 201 of 2018 in C.R. No. 05 of 2018
33. This application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 10 months 9
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
31/66
days in filing the instant Civil Revision application.
34. The instant application has been filed against the
Award dated 30.11.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 106 of
2012 by the learned Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal, Patna.
35. The aforesaid revision application along with
limitation petition has been filed on 09.01.2018. The period of
limitation expired on 28.02.2017. The requisition for certified
copy of Award was filed on 08.03.2017 which was ready for
delivery on the same day. The said certified copy was obtained
on 10.03.2017.
36. From perusal of the averments made in the
limitation petition, it is appears that the petitioners got
knowledge of the Award dated 30.11.2016 passed in Reference
Case No. 106 of 2012 on 19.12.2016. Soon thereafter, the
deponent sent the file to the department for necessary action.
37. In view of the legal opinion obtained from Panel
Advocate of the Department, the Department had taken decision
to assail the matter by filing Civil Revision application before
this Court. On the direction of Engineer-in-Chief cum-
Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary of the
department vide its letter dated 23.12.2016 for preparation of
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
32/66
statement of facts and grounds for Civil Revision and in
compliance of the same, the Executive Engineer vide letter
dated 10.02.2017 and submitted the formal draft prepared by
Panel Advocate to the Superintending Engineer on 10.02.2017.
Thereafter, the Chief Engineer issued letter dated 08.03.2017
with a direction to the Superintending Engineer to make
available the statement of facts and grounds of Revision
application. The Superintending Engineer issued letter dated
09.03.2017 to the Executive Engineer to submit the statement of
facts and grounds as required. The Executive Engineer sent a
letter to the Superintending Engineer on 18.03.2017 whereby
the Executive Engineer has replied that the required certified
copy of the Award has already been submitted in the
department. The Engineer-in-Chief- cum- Special Secretary
issued the letter dated 28.04.2017 to the Chief Engineer, South
Bihar with specific direction to make available the grounds of
revision and application for condonation of delay. A reminder
was also sent by the Engineer-in-Chief to the Chief Engineer,
South Bihar on 25.07.2017. It is further contended that after
receiving the statement of facts and grounds for filing Civil
Revision application, the same was sent for approval. The
Engineer-in-Chief approved the statement of facts and grounds
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
33/66
for filing the Civil Revision and file was sent to the Law
Department on 13.10.2017 for filing the Civil Revision
application. The Law Department sent the file to the office of
the learned Advocate General, Bihar, on 17.10.2017 and
subsequently the present case was allotted to the learned AAG-
11. Thereafter, the present Civil Revision application has been
filed on 09.01.2018. It is further contended that there is no
deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioner
rather the same has occurred due to lack of knowledge of the
Award as well as due to procedural formalities.
38. Learned counsel for the opposite party appeared
suo moto but did not file counter affidavit to the limitation
petition.
Re: I.A. No. 9684 of 2018 in C.R. No. 194 of 2018
39. This application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 2 years 21
days (date of Award is 31.08.2016) in filing the instant Civil
Revision application.
40. The present Revision application has been filed
against the Award dated 31.08.2016 passed in Reference Case
No. 134 of 2013 by the Arbitration Tribunal. The period of
limitation for filing the instant Revision application expired on
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
34/66
30.11.2016 (90 days from the date of Award).
41. In the limitation petition, it is contended that the
impugned Award was passed on 31.08.2016 in Reference Case
No. 134 of 2018 by the Arbitration Tribunal and the same was
received on 29.09.2016. It was brought to the notice of Under
Secretary of the department on 24.11.2016, who placed the file
before the Joint Secretary on 25.11.2016. The same was
produced before the Engineer-in-chief on 04.12.2016.
Thereafter, the file was placed before the Principal Secretary of
the department on 05.12.2016. The Engineer-in-chief sent the
file to the Law Department seeking opinion for filing Civil
Revision application against the impugned Award. The
Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance, Department of Law, Bihar
gave its opinion thereafter the file was sent to office of learned
Advocate General on 16.12.2016. It is further contended that
file was kept in the bunch of regular cases by mistake of
Advocate’s clerk of the concerned Lawyer due to which the
present Civil Revision application could not be filed in time. It
is further contended that in course of verification, the file was
located by the learned AC to AAG-4 on 05.10.2018. Soon
thereafter, the present Revision application along with the
limitation petition has been filed on 20.12.2018. Due to mistake
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
35/66
of the Advocate’s clerk delay has been caused in filing the Civil
Revision application and there is no deliberate or intentional
laches on the part of the petitioners in filing the instant Civil
Revision application.
42. Learned senior counsel for the opposite party
submitted that the explanation for condonation of huge delay
does not contain acceptable and plausible reason. The impugned
Award was passed on 31.08.2016 and the requisition for
certified copy of the Award was filed on 18.12.2018, i.e. just 2
days before filing the instant Revision application and the same
was delivered on the same date despite the fact that the said
Award dated 31.08.2016 was pronounced in presence of both
the parties. Further, it is admitted by the petitioners that the
impugned Award was received on 29.09.2016 sent by the office
of Arbitration Tribunal. The petitioners cannot deny knowledge
of such Award within statutory period of limitation. It is
apparent from the plea taken by the petitioners in its limitation
petition that each and every stage of movement of file
lackadaisical approach was taken for obtaining necessary
approval/ formalities. From the pleading of limitation petition, it
appears that the petitioners have failed to explain delay by
giving plausible and acceptable reason of delay in filing the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
36/66
present Civil Revision application.
Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in Civil Revision No. 9 of
2019
43. This interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1
year, 10 months 24 days (693 days) in filing this Civil Revision
application against the Award dated 22.11.2016 passed by the
learned Tribunal in Reference Case No. 110 of 2011, whereby
the petitioners’ Reference Case has been dismissed.
44. From perusal of the averments made in the
limitation petition, it appears that the Section Officer of the
Department received the copy of Award dated 22.11.2016 on
06.12.2016. The file was sent to the Superintendent Engineer
and opinion was sought from the Chief Engineer of the
Department through proper channel. It is further contended that
statement of facts for filing Civil Revision was received from
Chief Engineer on 20.12.2016. The same was forwarded to the
Law Department for obtaining opinion on the same day. The file
was brought to the notice of Engineer in Chief, who forwarded
the same to Principal Secretary on 15.03.2017 for obtaining
legal formalities and lastly Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance,
Bihar rendered its sanction and thereafter, on 28.03.2017, file
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
37/66
was sent to the learned Advocate General and on his advice for
filing Civil Revision Application, against the said Award, the
file was allotted to the AAG-4 on 30.03.2017. It is further
contended that the file was locked in the Almirah and the
Advocate’s Clerk inadvertently kept the file alongwith other
files in a bundle. The said file got tied up with other files and
only in the month of September, 2018, when officer of the
department approached the office of AAG-4, then on search, the
file was located on 28.09.2018. Thereafter, the said file along
with statement of facts was allotted to Assistant Counsel on
03.10.2018 for preparing Revision Petition and limitation
petition and soon thereafter, revision application was drafted
finally on 26.10.2018 the brief became ready for oath. A letter
was sent to the Department for deputing the authorised person to
swear the affidavit of the revision application. Lastly on
15.01.2019, the present revision application alongwith
limitation petition has been filed. It is further case of the
petitioners that due to mistake of the Advocate’s clerk, some
delay has caused in filing this revision application and there is
no intentional and deliberate laches on the part of the
petitioners.
45. On notice in limitation matter, opposite party
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
38/66
appeared and filed rejoinder to the limitation petition and
vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of huge delay
of 599 days (wrongly noted as 693 days). It is contended that
the explanation for condonation of delay does not contain any
acceptable and plausible reason. It is further contended that it is
admitted by the petitioners that the Award dated 22.11.2016
was received by the Section Officer on 06.12.2016 itself. The
requisition for obtaining certified copy of Award dated
22.11.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 110 of 2011 was filed
on 04.01.2019 which was ready on the same day i.e.
04.01.2019, despite the knowledge of the Award and the same
was received on 06.12.2016. It is apparent from the certified
copy of the Award that the requisition for obtaining certified
copy was filed on 04.01.2019 much beyond the prescribed
period of limitation for filing the Civil Revision application. It is
apparent from the limitation petition that the petitioners have
failed to furnish acceptable and cogent explanation for delay of
1 year 10 months 24 days in filing the revision application. It is
further contended that it is the usual explanation that the file
was kept pending for several months and time was consumed in
procedural formalities and also the file was kept in the Almirah
of the office of the advocates for several months. In such view
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
39/66
of the matter, the limitation petition may be dismissed having no
acceptable explanation of huge delay.
Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in Civil Revision No. 20 of
2019
46. This application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 3 years 9 months
16 days. The limitation expired on 20.04.2015 which was the
last date of filing this Civil Revision.
47. The aforesaid revision application has been filed
against the Award dated 20.01.2015 passed in Reference Case
No. 102 of 2011 by the Arbitrator Tribunal, Patna whereby
learned Arbitration Tribunal directed to refund the amount under
different heads with costs.
48. From perusal of the pleadings made in the
limitation petition, it appears that the petitioners came to know
about the Award dated 20.01.2015 passed in Reference Case No.
102 of 2011 on 21.03.2015 on receiving the intimation from
conducting lawyer of the said case. The department vide its
Letter No. 652 dated 27.01.2016 requested the empaneled
Advocate for drafting the statement of facts for assailing the
Award dated 20.01.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 102 of
2011 by the Arbitrator Tribunal. However, the present matter
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
40/66
was earlier under the Road Construction Department NH
Division, Aurangabad but from 22.09.2015 onwards, this matter
was transferred to NH Division Gulzarbagh. It is further pleaded
that the concerned advocate of the department could not prepare
the grounds to file civil revision application due to paucity of
time. Then, the file was sent to another counsel on 22.08.2016.
The learned counsel for the department returned the file to the
department on 22.09.2017 along with statement of facts for
filing civil revision application. The same was sent to the
department for its approval by the Executive Engineer NH
Division Gulzarbagh vide Letter No. 1127 dated 21.09.2017
through the concerned Superintending Engineer. It is further
contended that the said file was again sent to another advocate
of the department for preparing grounds for condonation of
delay on 09.11.2017. The same was returned along with the
statements of facts with regard to the condonation of delay by
the concerned advocate of the department on 24.11.2017.
Thereafter the present revision application has been filed on
06.02.2019. Hence, there is no deliberate or intentional laches
on the part of the petitioners and prayer has been made to
condone the delay in the interest of justice.
49. On 17.02.2020 suo moto opposite party appeared
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
41/66
through his learned counsel by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of
the opposite party and also filed rejoinder to I.A. No. 1 of 2019
(wrongly typed as I.A. No. 1 of 2020) and vehemently opposed
the condonation of huge delay of 3 years 9 months 16 days.
50. It is contended that the work in question was
under Road Construction Department, NH West Division, Patna
and not under NH Division Aurangabad. The said Reference
Case was filed against the State of Bihar through the Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Patna and the Executive Road
Construction Department, NH West Division Patna. The
statement of petitioners itself stands falsified from the records.
The petitioners appeared in the said Reference Case before the
Arbitration Tribunal and filed their rejoinder in the Reference
Case on 04.12.2013 itself. The department misled this Court by
making false statements. As such, the petitioners are not entitled
to equitable reliefs for condonation of delay. It is well settled
that whoever has approached the court with unclean hands, as in
the instant case, no equitable relief can be granted to such unfair
litigants. It is also contended that the petitioners have no
explanation or sufficient reason for delay in filing the present
revision application except saying that delay has occurred due to
movement of file from one office to another office. It is
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
42/66
contended that the lame excuse and reasons are not sufficient for
condonation of delay. The statement made by the petitioners is
totally misleading, laxity on the part of petitioner as well as
casualness of the petitioners. It is further contended that the
Apex Court as well as this Court has already held that “the
Government departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should
not be used as as an anticipated benefit for Government
departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light
and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few”. In such
view of the matter, the huge delay of 3 years 9 months 16 days
cannot be condoned in the interest of justice.
Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2020 in C.R. No. 21 of 2019
51. This application has been filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 3 years 2 days in
filing the instant Civil Revision application. The said Revision
application has been filed against the judgment and Award dated
04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 61 of 2012 by the
learned Arbitration Tribunal whereby an Award was passed in
favour of opposite party.
52. It is contended that a notice was issued by the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
43/66
Executing Court which was received on 28.05.2018 and on
getting the said information with regard to execution case
arising out of Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case
No. 61 of 2012, the then Superintending Engineer, N.H.
Division, Gulzarbagh, issued letter no. 1636 dated 30.05.2018
and directed the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division,
Gulzarbagh, to appear before the learned Execution Court
through Government Pleader and also directed to submit the
stand of the Government in this regard and further directed that
statement of facts would be prepared and the same would be
sent for approval. In compliance of aforesaid letter, the
Executive Engineer N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, issued letter
dated 04.06.2018 and requested the Government Pleader to
make pairvi in the matter. It is further submitted that the
Engineer-in-chief, Road Construction Department also issued
memo No. 4131(E) dated 14.06.2018 and directed the Executive
Engineer N.H. Division, Gulzarbagh, to prepare the statement of
facts for filing show cause in the Execution Case No. 284 of
2017 on the direction of the superior authority of the concerned
department. The Executive Engineer N.H. Division,
Gulzarbagh, enquired about the Reference Case No. 61 of 2012
from the learned Arbitration Tribunal and then they learnt that
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
44/66
the matter has already been disposed of by order/ Award dated
04.11.2015. Thereafter, on 14.09.2018 he applied for obtaining
certified copy of Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in Reference
Case No. 61 of 2012. The same was supplied on the same day.
After perusal of the said Award dated 04.11.2015 passed by the
learned Arbitration Tribunal, it was decided to challenge the
Award of Arbitration Tribunal and before this Court by way of
filing Civil Revision application. Accordingly, statement of facts
and grounds for filing Revision application was prepared and
the same was put up before the authority concerned on
19.11.2018 for sanction. After preparation of Civil Revision
application, the file along with draft was sent for vetting and
after completing the procedure, the file was sent to the
Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance on 11.12.2018. The
Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrance sent the file to the learned
Advocate General for filing Civil Revision application against
the impugned Award. Thereafter, the present Revision
application has been filed on 06.02.2019. It is further submitted
that petitioners had no knowledge about the Award dated
04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case No. 61 of 2012 and there
is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the
petitioners. The delay has occurred on account of complying the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
45/66
procedural formalities and prayed that it may be condoned for
the ends of justice.
53. Learned counsel for the opposite party appeared
suo moto and filed his rejoinder to the interlocutory application
and vehemently opposed the condonation of delay in filing the
instant Revision application. It is further contended that the
Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act,
2008 was enacted with the object of expeditious redressal of the
dispute and as such, while considering the application for
condonation of delay, the object of the Act is of paramount
consideration. The remedy against the Award passed by the
Tribunal is provided under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works
Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 whereby any
party aggrieved by the Award may file Revision application
within 3 months from the date of Award while the present
application has been filed after about 3 years of expiry of
limitation period of 90 days. It is further contended that
petitioners were party in Reference Case No. 61 of 2012
represented through the counsel and they filed their reply in the
said Reference Case. Moreover, the said impugned Award was
passed by the Arbitration Tribunal in presence of learned
counsels for the parties after notifying the case ‘For Orders’ and
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
46/66
in such view of the matter petitioners cannot take plea that they
had no knowledge about the passing of the Award. There is no
plausible explanation for delay in the instant application. The
said Award was passed after hearing the parties and it is not an
ex parte Award. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners
have themselves stated that they had learnt about the Execution
case on 28.05.2018 itself therefore their statement that they
learnt about the Award on 14.09.2018 is patently false. It is
further contended that the deponent in order to get order of
condonation of delay in favour of petitioner, has made false
statement in limitation petition and as such the petitioners are
not entitled to equitable relief in the nature of condonation of
delay as it is well settled that if the party approaches the Court
with unclean hands, as in the present case, no equitable relief
can be granted to such unfair litigants. Petitioners have not
furnished sufficient cause of delay in filing of the present
Revision application except saying that delay has occurred due
to movement of file from one office to another. It is further
contended that the State and its officers cannot be treated
differently while considering the prayer of condonation of delay.
The petitioners have miserably failed to give any acceptable and
cogent reason which may be sufficient to condone the delay of
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
47/66
about 3 years.
54. In support of their cases, learned counsel for the
petitioners, in all cases, submitted his common submission
placing the relevant citations for consideration of condonation
of delay in filing the Revision applications.
55. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
decision reported in 2023 (10) SCC 531 (Sheo Raj Singh (d)
through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr) wherein the
Apex Court has held in para 35.2 “the expression “sufficient
cause” is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice.
35.3. It is upon the courts to consider the sufficiency of cause
shown for the delay, and the length of delay is not always
decisive while exercising discretion in such matters if the delay
is properly explained. 35.4. It is further held that a distinction
should be drawn between inordinate unexplained delay and
explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent
had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on
part of the government functionaries and the government
counsel on record before the Reference Court. 41. An exercise of
jurisdiction does, at times, call for liberal and justice oriented
approach by the courts where certain leeway could be provided
to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
48/66
appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period
of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce
upon the legality and validity of an order on lower court and
thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored”.
56. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
due to special circumstances which were beyond the control of
the State authorities some time was consumed in taking
procedural formalities. It was further urged that delay may be
condoned as the interest of State would be jeopardized and
whatever be the laches were, they were neither willful nor
deliberate. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners has
drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of the Apex Court
reported in 2015 (3) SCC 569 (Executive Officer, Antiyur Town
Panchayat vs.. G. Arumugam (D) By Lrs., wherein, the Apex
Court condoned the delay of 1373 days in filing the appeal.
Learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice and
keeping in view the larger interest, the court should take lenient
view and condone the delay howsoever, the huge may be the
delay. Learned counsel(s) further relied upon a decision in the
case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of
Brihan Mumbai reported in 2012 (5) SCC 157. In the aforesaid
decision, the Apex Court in paragraph 18 has relied upon a
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
49/66
decision of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (N.
Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy) wherein, the Apex Court
has held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort
to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. In paragraph
13 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that while
condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite
party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and
he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It
would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the
delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall
compensate the opposite party for his loss.
57. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel
for the petitioners on the judgment in the case of Lanka
Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs vs State Of A.P. & Ors reported in
2011 (4) SCC 363 wherein the Apex Court has held that the
concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”,
“substantial justice” can not be employed to jettison the
substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the
Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. On
the similar point, reliance has been placed also on the decision
in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Ors. reported
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
50/66
in (2005) 3 SCC 752.
58. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite party has vehemently opposed the application
for condonation of delay and replied the submission based on
citation. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioners
have relied upon State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (supra). The
said judgment arises out of a criminal appeal. The State
preferred appeal against acquittal and application for grant of
leave was made in terms of Section 378 (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 as there was delay in making the
application for grant of leave in terms of Section 378(3) of the
Cr.P.C., application for condoning the delay was filed. There
was delay of 57 days in preferring application for grant of leave
under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court refused to
condone the delay of 57 days on the ground that it is a duty of
litigant to file appeal before expiry of limitation period. Merely
because the Additional Advocate General did not file an appeal
inspite of instructions issued to him that did not constitute
sufficient cause and further the fact that the records were
purportedly missing was not valid ground. Consequently, the
application for grant of leave was rejected by the High Court.
The Apex Court condoned the delay of 57 days in filing the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
51/66
grant of leave and set aside High Court’s judgment. In the
present cases, in all the revision applications, almost same
grounds have been taken by the authorities concerned with
regard to movement of file for obtaining sanction and other
formalities.
59. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it is
apparent from the records that there was delay at every stage
and there is no explanation except mentioning the dates of
movement of files even according to the petitioners, they
received the impugned Awards on 25.05.2014 (in Civil Revision
No. 9 of 2017 which has been filed on 12.01.2017), Award dated
01.03.2016 was received on 17.03.2016 (in Civil Revision No.
203 of 2017 which has been filed on 11.10.2017), Award dated
25.10.2016 was received on 01.12.2016 (in Civil Revision No.
208 of 2017 which has been filed on 17.10.2017), Award dated
17.08.2016 was received on 07.09.2016 sent by the Secretary of
the Arbitration Tribunal (in Civil Revision No. 258 of 2017
which has been filed on 20.12.2017), Award dated 21.08.2014
which was informed to the petitioners by opposite parties
through his representation dated 08.09.2014 ((in Civil Revision
No. 225 of 2017 which has been filed on 09.11.2017), for Award
dated 30.11.2016, requisition for certified copy of Award was
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
52/66
filed on 08.03.2017 and on the same day, the said certified copy
of Award was ready for delivery (in Civil Revision No. 5 of
2018) which has been filed on 09.01.2018, Award dated
31.08.2016 was received on 29.09.2016 by the petitioners (in
Civil Revision Application No. 194 of 2018) which has been
filed on 20.12.2018, Award dated 22.11.2016 was received on
06.12.2016 by the petitioners (in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2019
which has been filed on 15.01.2019), Award dated 20.01.2015
was received on 21.03.2015 (in Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019)
which has been filed on 06.02.2019 after prescribed period of
limitation and the impugned Award was passed in presence of
the petitioners’ counsel (in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2019 which
has been filed on 06.02.2019 after about 3 years of expiry of
limitation period of 90 days).
60. Reliance has been placed in the case of
Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd.
And Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in order to emphasize that the State and its officers cannot
be treated differently while considering the prayer for
condonation of delay has held in the aforesaid judgment as
follows:-
“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
53/66with the issues involved including the
prescribed period of limitation for taking up
the matter by way of filing a special leave
petition in this Court. They cannot claim that
they have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed with
competent persons familiar with court
proceedings. In the absence of plausible and
acceptable explanation, we are posing a
question why the delay is to be condoned
mechanically merely because the
Government or a wing of the Government is
a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the fact that
in a matter of condonation of delay when
there was no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal
concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view that in
the facts and circumstances, the Department
cannot take advantage of various earlier
decisions. The claim on account of
impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several
notes cannot be accepted in view of the
modern technologies being used and
available. The law of limitation undoubtedly
binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform
all the government bodies, their agencies
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
54/66and instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation for
the delay and there was bona fide effort,
there is no need to accept the usual
explanation that the file was kept pending
for several months/years due to considerable
degree of procedural red tape in the process.
The government departments are under a
special obligation to ensure that they
perform their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is an
exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for the government
departments. The law shelters everyone
under the same light and should not be
swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no
proper explanation offered by the
Department for the delay except mentioning
of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any
acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to
condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the
appeals are liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay.”
61. Learned senior counsel replied upon the decision
relied by the petitioners in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah
(Supra) and has placed paragraph nos. 18 & 19 of the said
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
55/66
judgment. Learned senior counsel also placed paragraph 28 &
29. The Apex Court has held that the learned single judge of the
High Court altogether ignored the gaping holes in the story
concocted by the Corporation about misplacement of the papers
and total absence of any explanation as to why nobody even
bothered to file applications for issue of certified copies of the
judgment for more than 7 years. It has been further held that the
reason assigned by the learned single judge be treated as poor
apology for exercise of discretion by the Court under Section 5
of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal filed by the
respondent against the judgment of the trial court.
62. Further, reliance has also been placed on the
judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs.
Santosh Kumar in Civil Revision No. 109 of 2018, whereby
this Court after considering the judgment of Apex Court as well
as this Court dismissed the application holding that the
petitioners have miserably failed to give any acceptable and
cogent reason which may be sufficient to condone the delay of 1
year 3 months 20 days in filling the instant revision application.
Further reliance has been placed in the case of State of Bihar &
Others Vs. M/s Trimurti Construction passed by this Court in
Civil Revision No. 48 of 2015 on 23.09.2015. This Court has
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
56/66
held that the petitioner had failed to furnish acceptable and
cogent explanation for delay of 9 months 26 days in filing the
revision application. Accordingly, the said revision application
was dismissed on the point of delay of 9 months 26 days
without any cogent explanation.
63. Shorn of unnecessary details, it may be stated that
the instant applications have been filed on behalf of the
petitioners against the impugned Award and in each of the
aforesaid Civil Revision applications, prayer has been made to
condone the delay of 2 years 6 months 16 days in Civil Revision
No. 09 of 2017, 1 year 3 months 22 days in Civil Revision
No.203 of 2017, 8 months 22 days in Civil Revision No. 208 of
2017, 1 year 1 month 3 days in Civil Revision No. 258 of 2017,
2 years 11 months 18 days in Civil Revision No. 225 of 2017,
10 months 9 days in Civil Revision No. 5 of 2018, 2 years 21
days in Civil Revision No. 194 of 2018, 1 year 10 months 24
days in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2019, 3 years 9 months 16 days
in Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019 and 3 years 2 days in Civil
Revision No. 21 of 2019. The Award dated 06.05.2014 passed in
Reference Case No. 85 of 2010 (Civil Revision No. 9 of 2017),
Award dated 01.03.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 115 of
2012 (Civil Revision No. 203 of 2017), Award dated 25.10.2016
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
57/66
passed in Reference Case No. 152 of 2014 ( Civil Revision No.
208 of 2017), Award dated 17.08.2016 passed in Reference Case
No. 59 of 2015 ( Civil Revision No. 258 of 2017), Award dated
21.08.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 38 of 2013 (Civil
Revision No. 225 of 2017), Award dated 30.11.2016 passed in
Reference Case No. 106 of 2012 ( Civil Revision No.05 of
2018), Award dated 31.08.2016 passed in Reference Case No.
134 of 2013 ( Civil Revision No. 194 of 2018), Award dated
22.11.2016 passed in Reference Case No. 110 of 2011 (Civil
Revision No. 9 of 2019), Award dated 20.01.2015 passed in
Reference Case No. 102 of 2011 (Civil Revision No. 20 of
2019) and Award dated 04.11.2015 passed in Reference Case
No. 61 of 2012 (Civil Revision No. 21 of 2019) have been
challenged separately in the aforesaid revision applications filed
under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes
Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 which provides for revision
application to be filed within three months from the date on
which the Award is made. The limitation for filing of the
Revision Applications expired on 06.08.2014, 20.06.2016,
25.01.2017, 21.11.2014, 17.11.2016, 28.02.2017, 30.11.2016,
22.02.2017, 20.04.2015 & 04.02.2016 respectively.
64. The details of the each case has been mentioned in
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
58/66
the following table.
SI No. of Date of Date of Date of Award Date of Date of Delay
No Civil Award knowled requisiti ready supplied filing in
. Revisio ge/ on for for Civil filing
n commun C.C. of delivery Revisio Civil
ication Award n Revisi
of on
Award
1. 9/2017 06.05. 25.05. —– —- —- 12.01. 2 years
2014 2014 2017 5months
6 days
2. 203/201 01.03. 17.03. 02.08. 02.08. 08.08. 11.10. 1 year
7
2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 3months
22
days
3. 208/2017
25.10. 01.12. 16.10. 16.10. 16.10. 17.10. 8
2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 months 22
days
4. 258/2017
17.08. 07.09. 06.12. 06.12. 07.12. 20.12. 1 year
2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 1month
3 days
5. 225/2017
21.08. 08.09. 10.07. 12.07. 13.07. 09.11. 2 years
2014 2014 2017 2017 2017 2017 11 months
18
days
6. 5/2018 30.11. 19.12. 08.03. 08.03. 10.03. 09.01. 10
2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2018 months 9 days
7. 194/2018
31.08. 29.09. 18.12. 18.12. 18.12. 20.12. 2 years
2016 2016 2018 2018 2018 2018 21 days
8. 9/2019 22.11. 06.12. 04.01. 04.01. 04.01. 15.01. 1 year
2016 2016 2019 2019 2019 2019 10 months
24
days
9. 20/2019 20.01. 21.03. 09.10. 09.10. 09.10. 06.02. 3 years
2015 2015 2017 2017 2017 2019 9months
16
days
10. 21/2019 04.11. 28.05. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 06.02. 3 years
2015 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2 days
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
59/66
65. In all cases, the requisitions for certified copy of
Awards have been filed by the petitioners after long delay of the
prescribed period for filing the revision applications. It is
apparent from the limitation petitions filed in the aforesaid
revision applications that there was delay at every stage and
there is no plausible explanation except mentioning the dates of
movement of files. The matter has been dealt with by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in detail in the case of Government of
Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by
Executive Engineer Vs. Borse Brothers Engineer and
Contractors Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the object of speedy
disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act
and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of
disputes, the expression “sufficient cause” is not elastic enough
to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal
provision itself. Besides, the expression “sufficient cause” is not
itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale
claims. The Apex Court has relied upon the decision in the case
of Basawaraj Vs. LAO reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81. The
expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal
interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
60/66
so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be
imputed to the party concerned, whether or not “sufficient
cause” has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a
particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
66. The Hon’ble Apex Court further quoted policy of
Limitation Acts and unlimited limitation would lead to a sense
of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents
disturbances or deprivation of what any have acquired in equity
and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a
party’s own inaction, negligence or laches. It has been further
held in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnatka
reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578, by the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to
legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak
reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225. It has been further quoted that
law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a
case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the
applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient
cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which
prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case a
party is found to be negligent or for want of bona fide on his
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
61/66
part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have
not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be
justified grounds to condone the delay. No court could be
justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any
condition whatsoever. The Hon’ble Apex Court in number of
cases particularly in the Postmaster General (Supra) in
paragraph no. 27, 28 & 29 has observed that merely because the
Government is involved, a different yardstick for condonation of
delay cannot be laid down.
67. The decision in the Postmaster General (supra)
has been followed in the following subsequent judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court.
(i) The State of Rajasthan Vs. Bal Kishan
Mathur reported in (2014) 1 SCC 592 -at paras 8-8.2.
(ii) The State of U.P. Thr. Exe. Engineer & Anr.
Vs. Amar Nath Yadav reported in (2014) 2 SCC 422 –
paras 2-3.
(iii) The State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Bherulal
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 654 – at paras 3-4.
68. In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has laid down principles in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy
(died) by Lrs. And Ors. Vs. The Special Duty Collector (LA) in
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
62/66
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on
08.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 and has held
that while condoning the delay or refusing to condone the delay,
the principles laid down in the said judgment has to be
considered and discussed in Paragraph no. 26 of the judgment as
under:-
“26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions
of law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is
evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy
that there should be an end to litigation by
forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right
itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been
exercised or availed of for a long time must come
to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of
time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be
construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be
construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to
be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though
liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or
cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but
the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial
law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the
Limitation Act;
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
63/66
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to
condone the delay if sufficient cause had been
explained, but that exercise of power is
discretionary in nature and may not be exercised
even if sufficient cause is established for various
factors such as, where there is inordinate delay,
negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar
matter, it does not mean that others are also
entitled to the same benefit if the court is not
satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in
filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be
considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be
decided on the parameters laid down for
condoning the delay and condoning the delay for
the reason that the conditions have been imposed,
tantamounts to disregarding the statutory
provision.
69. Having considered the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court and materials on records, it is apparent that there is
no sufficient explanation except mentioning the movement of
files from one stage to another and a lame excuse. In limitation
petitions filed in Civil Revision Nos. 194 of 2018 & 9 of 2019.
Same grounds have been taken for explaining the delay in filing
the aforesaid two civil revision applications in which the
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
64/66
deponents stated that files were sent to the office of learned
Advocate General on 16.12.2016 and 28.03.2017 respectively.
The said files were kept in the bunch of regular cases by mistake
of Advocate’s Clerk of the concerned panel lawyers due to
which the said civil revision applications could not be filed in
time. The said revision applications were filed on 20.12.2018
and 15.01.2019. It is pertinent to mention that the said files were
located on 05.10.2018 and 28.09.2018 respectively while both
the revision applications were filed after 2 months 14 days and 3
months 16 days respectively. In another revision application i.e.
Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019, the plea has been taken that the
petitioners were not dealing with the matter in Reference Case.
The said work was being carried out by Road Construction
Department, NH Division, Aurangabad, and on 22.09.2015, the
work was handed over to NH Division, Gulzarbagh. This plea is
apparently false and misleading. It is apparent from the Award
dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal in
Reference Case No. 102 of 2011 that the petitioners were one of
the opposite parties of the Award under challenge. Moreover, the
petitioners also filed rejoinder to the claim of the opposite party
in the said Reference case. The said petitioners have not come
with clean hand.
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
65/66
70. In other cases, the petitioners had knowledge
about the cases through communication made by the Secretary
of the Arbitration Tribunal, who sent the copy of Award about
one month of passing of the aforesaid Awards. In all Awards, the
learned Arbitration Tribunal has passed the order in presence of
the petitioners. No ex parte order or Award was passed. In such
view of the matter, it is apparent that there was lack of bona fide
effort. The petitioners filed the revision applications after
inordinate delay i.e., much after the prescribed time and there
was complete lack of due diligence by the petitioners in taking
steps for filing the aforesaid revision applications.
71. Having considered the judgments of the Apex
Court as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and materials on record of the case, it is
apparent that there was delay at every stage and there is no
explanation except mentioning the dates of movement of files.
Even according to the petitioners, due information and copy of
the Award was sent by the Arbitration Tribunal within
prescribed period. Further, all the petitioners were represented
through their learned counsels before the Tribunal and the
Awards of the said cases were passed in presence of the
counsels of the petitioners. The petitioners have miserably failed
Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025
66/66
to give any acceptable and cogent reason to condone such a
huge delay of 2 years 5 months 8 days, 1 year 3 months 22 days,
8 months 22 days, 1 year 1 month 3 days, 2 years 11 months 18
days, 10 months 9 days, 2 years 21 days, 1 year 10 months 24
days, 3 years 9 months 16 days & 3 years 2 days respectively.
72. Accordingly, the limitation petitions bearing I.A.
Nos. 161 of 2017 in C.R. No. 9 of 2017, 7500 of 2017 in C.R.
No. 203 of 2017, 7717 of 2017 in C.R. No. 208 of 2017, 9374 of
2017 in C.R. No. 258 of 2017 , 8105 of 2017 in C.R. No. 225 of
2017, 201 of 2018 in C.R. No. 05 of 2018 , 9684 of 2018 in
C.R. No. 194 of 2018, 1 of 2019 in C.R. No. 09 of 2019, 1 of
2019 in C.R. No. 20 of 2019 & 1 of 2020 in C.R. No. 21 of
2019 are dismissed having no merit in it.
73. Consequently, upon the dismissal of limitation
petitions, Civil Revision Nos. 09 of 2017, 203 of 2017, 208 of
2017, 258 of 2017, 225 of 2017, 05 of 2018, 194 of 2018, 9 of
2019, 20 of 2019 & 21 of 2019 are dismissed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
Sankalp/
Premchand-
U