“ No doubt t he pr ovi si ons of t he Ar bi t r at i on Act , 1996 and par t i cul ar l y Sect i on 34( 3) of t he Act i s i nt ent i oned f or a speedy di sposal of t he ar bi t r at i on pr oceedi ngs and i n any event such l axi t y i s not al l owed. I t woul d r esul t i n f r ust r at i ng t he ver y pur pose of t he Act , but al l t he same, I cannot l oose si ght of t he f act t hat i n t he i nst ant case, t he of f i cer s of t he J. S. E. B. have adopt ed a del ayi ng t act i cs i n appr oval of t he agenda and var i ous pr oceedi ngs, obvi ousl y f or speci f i c r easons not wel l i nt ent i oned. I n t he i nst ant case, i t i s one of t hose except i onal cases wher e t he depar t ment has al so i ni t i at ed cr i mi nal pr osecut i on agai nst t he of f i cer s and, i n case t he appl i cat i on i s r ej ect ed on t echni cal gr ound, i t wi l l have a f ar r eachi ng ef f ect on t he publ i c exchequer def eat i ng pr i nci pl es of j ust i ce. Unf or t unat el y t he del ay caused no doubt ext ends t o year s, not onl y mont hs, but si nce t he t r i al cour t has ent er t ai ned t he appl i cat i on and has condoned t he del ay, i n t hese ci r cumst ances, t hi s Cour t i s not i ncl i ned t o i nt er f er e i n t he or der passed by t he Tr i al Cour t . Looki ng t o t he huge amount of publ i c money, whi ch i s i nvol ved i n t he mat t er and f ol l owi ng t he pr i nci pl es l ai d down by t he Apex Cour t i n i t s var i ous deci si ons” . The i mpugned or der of t he t r i al cour t was uphel d by t he Hi gh Cour t of Jhar khand.
