Case Background
This case arose out of a government construction contract in Bihar.
The Water Resources Department of the State of Bihar issued a tender. The opposite party, a private company, took part in the tender process. Its bid was accepted and the work was awarded to it.
An agreement bearing no. 1 S.B.D. of 2011‑2012 was executed between the company and the departmental authorities.
Disputes later arose regarding this contract. This led to filing of writ petitions before the Patna High Court. Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal under the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.
Before the Tribunal, the dispute was registered as Reference Case No. 26 of 2013. On 25.11.2014, the Tribunal passed an arbitral award.
The State, being dissatisfied with this award, did not immediately come to the High Court. Instead, it first filed a civil review before the Tribunal itself. This review was registered as Civil Review No. 1 of 2015. On 10.11.2016, the Tribunal dismissed that review.
Only after that dismissal did the file start moving within the Department for considering a civil revision before the Patna High Court against the award dated 25.11.2014 and the review order dated 10.11.2016.
The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, examined the order and, by letter dated 18.12.2016, sent it to the Superintending Engineer with a request to consider filing a civil revision.
On 19.01.2017, the Superintending Engineer forwarded the matter to the Chief Engineer for consideration of filing a civil revision. The Chief Engineer, by letter dated 31.01.2017, opined that a civil revision may be filed before the High Court.
A panel advocate was then requested to prepare the statement of facts. On 24.04.2017, the file was sent to the Under Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Department for verification and perusal.
On 09.05.2017, the file went to the Principal Secretary of the Department. He decided to seek the opinion of the Law Department, Government of Bihar, and endorsed the file to that Department on 16.05.2017.
The Law Department returned the file on 17.05.2017 with the opinion that a civil revision should be filed against both the award in Reference Case No. 26 of 2013 dated 25.11.2014 and the review order dated 10.11.2016 in Civil Review No. 1 of 2015.
Despite this, the civil revision was filed only on 20.06.2018, nearly three and a half years after the award. The application for a certified copy of the award itself was made on 06.06.2018.
Because of this long delay, the State filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 3 years 3 months and 25 days in filing the civil revision under Section 13 of the 2008 Act.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, heard the State’s application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2 of 2018) along with the connected civil revision.
The petitioners (State authorities) argued that the delay was procedural and not deliberate. They requested the Court to adopt a justice‑oriented and liberal approach.
They relied on the fact that the file had moved through several levels within the Department—Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer, departmental secretaries, and the Law Department—before the decision to file the revision was taken.
The State’s counsel submitted that these were normal governmental procedures and that courts have generally taken a liberal view in condoning delays for government bodies. For this, reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh.
The opposite party (the contractor) strongly opposed the request. It pointed out that the award was passed on 25.11.2014, yet the certified copy was applied for only on 06.06.2018—long after the ordinary limitation period had expired.
The opposite party argued that the petitioners had “miserably failed” to explain this huge delay of more than three and a half years. According to them, the petitioners were required to explain every day’s delay and had not done so.
The opposite party further relied on the statutory scheme. Section 13(1) of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 provides that an application (civil revision) to the High Court against an award must be filed within three months from the date on which the award is made.
Section 8 of the 2008 Act says that its provisions are “in addition to and supplemental to” the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and if any provision of the 2008 Act conflicts with the 1996 Act, the 1996 Act will prevail to the extent of conflict.
The opposite party drew the Court’s attention to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This section fixes a period of three months from the date of receipt of the award for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award.
The proviso to Section 34(3) allows the court to entertain such an application within a further period of 30 days, if satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing in time, “but not thereafter”.
Based on this, the opposite party argued that while Section 13 of the 2008 Act allows a three‑month period from the date of making of the award, Section 8 makes clear that the 1996 Act’s limitation regime applies and prevails.
Therefore, even if delay is to be condoned in a revision under Section 13, it can be condoned only for a further period of 30 days beyond three months, and no more. The present delay of more than three years was, thus, wholly beyond the Court’s power to condone.
The opposite party relied on several Supreme Court decisions: Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., and Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd.
After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court first considered the legal framework.
The Court noted that Section 13(1) of the 2008 Act prescribes a three‑month period from the date the award is made for filing a revision in the High Court.
Section 8 of the 2008 Act clearly states that its provisions are in addition to and supplemental to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the 1996 Act will prevail in case of conflict.
The Court observed that, regarding limitation for challenging an award, both the 2008 Act and the 1996 Act prescribe a three‑month period—though they count it differently (from the date of making vs. the date of receipt). However, that difference was not directly in issue here.
The crucial point, according to the Court, was the power to condone delay.
The 2008 Act is silent about how much delay can be condoned. By contrast, the proviso to Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act specifically allows condonation of delay only up to 30 days beyond the three‑month limitation, and “not thereafter”.
Applying Section 8, the Court held that the 1996 Act’s strict limit on condonation applies to revisions under Section 13 of the 2008 Act as well. Therefore, while some delay can be condoned, delay beyond 30 days after expiry of the three‑month period cannot be condoned.
To reinforce this view, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinda v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
In that case, the Supreme Court had held that when a statute prescribes a maximum condonable period, neither the Supreme Court under Article 142 nor a High Court under Article 226 can ignore that statutory limit.
The Patna High Court quoted extensive passages from that judgment, which emphasised that courts must respect express statutory prohibitions about limitation. When the law states that delay may be condoned up to a certain number of days “but not thereafter”, courts cannot bypass that limit in the name of doing “complete justice”.
The High Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. In that case, it was held that an application filed beyond the period mentioned in Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act is not an application “in accordance with” that section and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to extend that period.
The Court then examined the factual delay in this case.
The award was passed on 25.11.2014. The three‑month limitation period under Section 13 of the 2008 Act expired on 25.02.2015.
However, the application for a certified copy of the award was filed only on 06.06.2018—more than three years and three months after the limitation period had already ended.
The civil revision itself was filed on 20.06.2018, with a prayer to condone a delay of 3 years 3 months and 25 days.
The Court held that, in view of Section 8 of the 2008 Act read with the proviso to Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, delay beyond 30 days after the three‑month period cannot be condoned. Therefore, the present delay was well outside the Court’s power.
Even beyond this legal bar, the Court found the explanation for the delay to be unacceptable.
The limitation petition and the supplementary affidavit mainly narrated how the file moved from one table to another within the Department. There was no explanation why the certified copy of the award was sought only in June 2018, long after limitation had expired in February 2015.
The Court called attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., where the Court had criticised government departments for giving vague excuses about procedural delays and had stressed that condonation of delay is an exception, not a rule.
Applying those principles, the Patna High Court held that the State had failed to show “just or reasonable” cause for such a huge delay. The supplementary affidavit filed in 2024, described as containing “better averments”, also did not offer any real justification.
The Court then addressed the earlier decisions cited by the State, namely State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, where a more liberal approach to government delay had been discussed.
It held that those judgments did not assist the petitioners in the present case because here there was a clear statutory bar, and the delay was extremely long and unexplained.
In conclusion, the Court held that the petitioners had not made out any case for condoning the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2018, the limitation petition, was dismissed.
Since the application for condonation of delay was rejected, the civil revision itself, being time‑barred, also stood dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for contractors and government departments involved in public works disputes in Bihar.
First, it makes clear that challenges to awards of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal must be filed within three months, and at best within an extra 30 days, not beyond.
Second, it shows that government departments cannot rely on internal file‑movement and routine bureaucracy as a valid excuse for long delays. The Court expects timely action and proper explanation.
Third, once the limitation period plus the additional 30 days expire, the arbitral award effectively becomes final and enforceable. Parties should not assume that courts will rescue them from their own inaction.
For contractors, this judgment reinforces the finality of tribunal awards after the limitation period. For government officers, it is a warning that negligence in pursuing legal remedies can lead to irreversible loss of the case.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Patna High Court condone a delay of 3 years 3 months and 25 days in filing a civil revision under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 against an arbitral award?
Answer: No. In view of Section 8 of the 2008 Act read with the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, delay can be condoned only up to 30 days beyond the three‑month limitation, and the present delay far exceeded that limit. - Issue: Did the State of Bihar provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay in challenging the award?
Answer: No. The Court found that merely narrating how the file moved between officers, without explaining why the certified copy was sought and the revision was filed so late, did not constitute a just or reasonable explanation. - Issue: Do earlier Supreme Court decisions allowing a liberal approach to delay in government matters help when there is a clear statutory bar on condonation beyond a specified period?
Answer: No. The Court held that decisions like Chandra Mani and Kameshwar Prasad Singh do not override the express bar in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, which restricts condonation to 30 additional days only.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinda & Others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681
- Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470
- Postmaster General & Others v. Living Media India Limited & Another, (2012) 3 SCC 563
- State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Others, (1996) 3 SCC 132
- State of Bihar & Others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Another, 2000 (3) PLJR (SC) 81
- Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, (2022) 4 SCC 162
- Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 455
- Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 102
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 84 of 2018; I.A. No. 2 of 2018 (limitation petition)
Case Title: The State of Bihar & Others v. Kems Service Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Mr. Mohan Kumar Khandelwal
Citation: 2024(2) PLJR 496
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Date of Judgment: 15.04.2024
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners (State of Bihar and departmental officers): Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG‑4; Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, Advocate
- For the Opposite Party (Contractor company): Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate; Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate; Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Civil revision under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in challenging an arbitral award.
Outcome: Application for condonation of delay dismissed; civil revision consequently dismissed as time‑barred.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in Civil Revision No. 84 of 2018
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
