@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.@mdashIt is regrettable that the time limits set by this Court for disposal of disputes are ordinarily violated by the
bureaucratic apparatus and this case is no exception for the same. While disposing of WP No. 24974 of 2011 on 29.11.2011, this Court has
directed respondent No. 3 herein to finalize and dispose of the appeals/arbitration applications of the petitioners within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, irrespective of whether the awards are modified or not by the National Highways Authority of
India. Even though more than one year had lapsed after the expiry of the time limit set by this Court, respondent No. 3 has failed to complete the
proceedings.
2. When the petitioners filed the present writ petition, this Court has prima facie felt that respondent No. 3 failed to comply with the time limit set
by this Court and has issued notice to show-cause why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him. Respondent No. 3 filed a counter-
affidavit wherein he has sought to give justifications for non-disposal of the cases. He has however assured that the case stands posted to
20.4.2013 and that hearing will be completed on that day.
3. At the hearing, it has come out that even on 20.4.2013, the case could not be taken up for hearing by respondent No. 3.
4. Be that as it may, when the Constitutional Courts set time limits, it is obligatory on the part of the functionaries concerned to adhere to the same
or seek extension of time. As in many a case, in this case also, neither the time limit was adhered to nor a request for extension of time has been
made. Since a writ petition has now been filed and this Court issued notice as referred above, respondent No. 3 evidently wants to hurriedly close
the hearing.
5. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, rightly pointed out that being the arbitrator, respondent No. 3 has to follow proper
procedure and give reasonable opportunity to all the parties to put forth their cases for adducing relevant evidence and that the hearings cannot be
completed in a haste as the time limit set by this Court has already been crossed.
6. While expressing dissatisfaction at the non-completion of the arbitration proceedings despite lapse of substantial time beyond the time limit set
by this Court, a fresh time limit of three months is set for respondent No. 3 for completing the proceedings by scrupulously following the procedure
stipulated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondent No. 3 shall conduct regular hearings instead of closing the cases in a hurry
by permitting the petitioners to adduce relevant evidence and pass appropriate awards within the above mentioned time limit it is made clear that if
this order is not complied with, this Court will no longer show any leniency as has been done till now.
7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No. 11876/2013 is disposed of as infructuous.