HARI SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND 8 OTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 18842 of 2026

Hari Singh
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

Union Of India And 8 Other
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                       :   Pradyumna Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                       :   A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

Court No. - 21
             HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
             HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradyumna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief :-

     "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus
     directing    to   respondent     no.2    Additional     Commissioner
     (Arbitration) Agra Division Agra to decide the case No.
     RST/1054/2025 (Computerized Case No. C20250100001054)
     (Hari Singh V/S NHAI and others) under section 3G (5) National
     Highway Act 1956, filed by petitioner, with in stipulated time
     fixed by this Hon'ble court. Otherwise the petitioner shall suffer
     irreparable loss and injury."

3. At the outset, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State respondents has raised an objection qua the
maintainability of the instant writ petition on the premise that the
controversy in hand is no more res integra and has relied upon the judgment
and order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Writ C No. 28215 of 2025 (Suryadev
Pathak Vs. Union of India and 4 others).

4. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment and order dated
28.11.2025 is quoted as under :-
                                                          WRIC No. 18842 of 2026
                                2


" F. CONCLUSION

7. In view of the detailed discussion above, this Court holds as follows :

7.1. The arbitration proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956 are
governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by virtue of
Section 3G(6) of the Act, 1956.

7.2. Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, 1996 prescribes a specific
timeline for completion of arbitration proceedings and provides that after
expiry of the statutory period, the mandate of the arbitrator can be
extended only by the "Court" as defined in Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the said
Act.

7.3. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad does not exercise
ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the
definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
Consequently, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 29A
of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

7.4. Once the statutory period prescribed under Section 29A has expired,
the mandate of the arbitrator stands exhausted, and he becomes functus
officio. After expiry of the mandate, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued
by this Court directing the arbitrator to decide the arbitration
proceedings. Any extension of the mandate can be granted only by the
competent civil court upon a proper application under Section 29A(4) of
the Arbitration Act, 1996.

7.5. The existence of a specific statutory remedy under Section 29A(4)
before the competent civil court bars the maintainability of writ petitions
seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of arbitration proceedings,
especially when the statutory period has expired.

7.6. Out of the above-noted eight writ petitions under consideration, in
four cases including the leading case, the statutory period prescribed
under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, 1996 has already expired and
the mandate of the arbitrators has lapsed. In the remaining four
connected cases, the statutory period of eighteen months has not yet
expired. However, this Court holds that irrespective of whether the
                                                               WRIC No. 18842 of 2026
                                    3


     statutory period has expired or not, the writ petitions are not
     maintainable. In the four cases where the statutory period has expired,
     the facts are almost similar to the facts in Jai Bahadur Singh (supra),
     where the petitioner had approached this Court after the expiry of the
     statutory period and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that
     the mandate of the arbitrator had lapsed and could be extended only by
     the competent civil court. In the four cases where the statutory period has
     not yet expired, this Court holds that even in such cases, the appropriate
     forum for seeking directions regarding arbitration proceedings is the
     competent civil court as defined under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the
     Arbitration Act, 1996, and not this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction
     under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, for the reasons stated
     above, all the above-noted writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

     G. FINAL ORDERS

     8. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated above,
     all the writ petitions are dismissed.

     8.1. However, it is clarified that this order is confined to the issue of
     maintainability and jurisdiction and does not express any opinion on the
     merits of the claims of the petitioners in the arbitration proceedings
     before the Arbitrator.

     8.2. It is further clarified that the dismissal of these writ petitions shall
     not preclude the petitioners from approaching the competent civil court
     under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for appropriate orders
     including extension of the mandate of the arbitrator or substitution of the
     arbitrator, as the case may be, in accordance with law.

     8.3. The competent civil court, if and when approached by the petitioners,
     shall decide the application on its own merits in accordance with law and
     without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
     8.4. There shall be no order as to costs."

5. So far as factual and legal aspects are concerned, the same is not disputed
by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
                                                                                              WRIC No. 18842 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                    that the instant matter is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant
                                    writ petition sans merits and stands dismissed in the same terms as have
                                    been given in the case of Suryadev Pathak (supra).



                                                       (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    May 14, 2026
                                    Sumit S




Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad