Delhi High Court - Orders
Uoi Thr Cpwd & Ors vs M/S Raj Kumar Tyagi on 1 July, 2024
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2020 (disposed of)
UOI THR CPWD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, SPC with
Ms. Neha Yadav, Advocate
[M:9873099031].
versus
M/S RAJ KUMAR TYAGI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Bhaumik, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 01.07.2024 I.A. 31822/2024 (for restoring the petition by recall of the order dated 06.10.2021) & I.A. 31823/2024 (for condonation of delay of 930 days in filing the restoration application)
1. These applications have been filed by the Union of India ["UOI"], Central Public Works Department ["Department"] for restoration of O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2020, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 06.10.2021, and for condonation of delay of 930 days in filing of the application.
2. The petition was originally filed in the year 2012 [OMP 1069/2012], under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], challenging an arbitral Award dated 31.05.2012 alongwith an order dated 30.06.2012. The parties were last represented on 13.12.2019 when the proceedings were adjourned to 18.03.2020. It appears that the petition was, in fact, listed on 14.07.2021, in view of the intervening Coronavirus pandemic.
O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2020 Page 1 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2024 at 21:31:07
3. In the meanwhile, the petition had been re-numbered as O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2020, pursuant to an order of the learned Joint Registrar dated 28.01.2020.
4. Neither party was represented on 14.07.2021, and the petition was adjourned to 06.10.2021. The parties were also unrepresented on the said date. The petition was, therefore, dismissed in default.
5. Turning first to the question of condonation of delay, the applicant seeks to justify the delay of 930 days on the ground of the pandemic and consequent restricted functioning of the Court. It is contended that the counsel for UOI was under the impression that matters were being adjourned en bloc and that only urgent matters would be heard effectively. It is also contended that the renumbering of the petition contributed to the failure of learned counsel to keep track of the matter.
6. I do not find this explanation very convincing. The protocols being followed from time to time during the pandemic were well publicised. The Department, being involved in such a large number of cases, can hardly claim to have been ignorant of those protocols. Further, even after the renumbering of the petition, the status of the case - including the order of the learned Joint Registrar dated 28.01.2020 - were available on the website of this Court, under the original case number. It seems apparent that neither the Department, nor its counsel, attempted to inform themselves of the status of the case for this considerable period of time.
7. Be that as it may, it is also stated in the application that the respondent filed proceedings for enforcement of the impugned award in December, 2022, in which Court notice was served upon the applicant- Department in the third week of August, 2023. It is contended that a O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2020 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2024 at 21:31:07 learned Government Counsel was appointed on 28.08.2023 to move an application for restoration. The captioned applications were, however, filed only on 22.05.2024, approximately nine months after the Department admittedly learnt of the dismissal.
8. The explanation for this further delay, as stated in the application, is that the Central Government counsel engaged "did not prepare the Application for Restoration for about 8 Months and finally return the brief to the Department vide E-mail dated 22.04.2024 with an observation that "since there is minimal chance of restoration of the aforesaid matter.""1
9. The applicant thereafter sought appointment of a new counsel for filing of the restoration application. This process commenced on 27.04.2024, and the application was filed on 22.05.2024 by Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the applicant- Department today.
10. The e-mail correspondence annexed to the application from the erstwhile learned counsel to the applicant- Department is, in my view, insufficient to explain the further admitted delay of approximately nine months in filing an application for restoration.
11. The applicant has annexed to the application an e-mail dated 28.08.2023, by which the Department was requested to depute an official to instruct the learned erstwhile counsel. In the e-mail dated 22.04.2024, the erstwhile counsel refers to a communication dated 23.03.2023, to the effect that no instructions have been received despite several communications. The file was thereafter returned to the Department.
O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2020 Page 3 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2024 at 21:31:08
12. In the course of hearing today, Mr. Pandey sought a passover to enable him to take instructions as to whether the Department had followed up with the erstwhile counsel at all between August, 2023 and April, 2024 for filing of the application for restoration. He candidly submits that there is no correspondence whatsoever addressed by the Department to the learned counsel. He has only referred to a communication of 23.12.2023, by which the learned counsel refers to meetings with the Department's representatives. Mr. Pandey has been instructed that there were, in fact, some e-mails addressed by the learned counsel to the Department during the aforesaid period, with regard to instructions in the enforcement proceedings. In fact, I am informed that the erstwhile counsel, upon whom all responsibility is sought to be pinned for the delay in filing of the restoration application, still represents the Department in the enforcement proceedings.
13. Even assuming in the Department's favour with regard to the period until August, 2023, the delay thereafter cannot be explained simply by blaming the erstwhile counsel.
14. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay.
15. I.A. 31823/2024 for condonation of delay of 930 days in filing of the restoration application is, therefore, rejected. Consequently, I.A. 31822/2024 for restoration of the petition stands dismissed.
PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 1, 2024/SS/ 1 [Sic.] O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2020 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2024 at 21:31:08