JUDGMENT 1. THE opposite party, a firm of contractors entered into a contract with the petitioner-state for some work. Differences having is on, the opposite party invoked Arbitration Clause 25 of the agreement under the terms of which the Chief Engineer of the Department being the petitioner no. 2 of a person to be appointed by him was to act as the Arbitrator. The petitioner no. 2 having not entered into and proceeded with reference as per sent a notice to him suggesting that Dr. Pratap Chandra Chunder be appointed as Arbitrator and requesting the petitioner no. 2 to concur within 15 days. The petitioner no. 2 having not intimated his concurrence within that period the O. P. petitioned the City Civil Court, Calcutta for revoking the authority of the petitioner no. 2 act or to appoint an Arbitrator and to appoint another proper person to act as Arbitrator. The petitioners opposed this petition asserting that the petitioner no. 2 had already nominated an arbitrator on 7-10-88. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta heard the petition of the opposite party ex parte allowed the said petition, revoked the authority or the petitioner no. 2 to act as or to appoint an Arbitrator and appointed Dr. Pratap Chandran Chunder as the Arbitrator. Hence, this revisional application. 2. BEFORE, however, the revisional application may be taken up for consideration, we have to deal with a prayer from the side of the petitioners to condone delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act. The impugned order in this case was passed on 13-1-90. The present application for revision was, however filed on 10-12-90 i.e. after delay of 205 days. The delay has been explained in para 12 to 30 of the application. It is the usual story of the file moving from this Department to that or this authority to that for taking decision, lifting certified copy, taking legal opinion, engagement of different Advocates by the L. R. , drafting of the application, approval of the same by the appropriate Authority and so forth and so on. Such delay on the part of the State due to the circumstances mentioned above is not an unheard of phenomenon. Such delay on the part of the State due to the circumstances mentioned above is not an unheard of phenomenon. It is because of this that it has been observed that in assessing "sufficient cause" under Section 5 in a case where the Government is the petitioner, the factors peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the government resulting in procedural delay should be taken into consideration and that it would be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters; Ramagowda vs. SPLA. Officer, (1988)2 SCC 142 . As it has also been observed on account of an impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing and passing on the back ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand; Collector L. A. vs. Mrs. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 . The State may not be a priveleged litigant but it will certainly be a great mistake to overlook the constrints under which the State machinery works which induce delay at every step in all litigations to which the State is a party. The delay in this case, though considerable has been satisfactorily explained and in view of the observations referred to above, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. NOW, to the Revisional application. The learned Chief Judge has not given any reason of his own for allowing the opposite party's petition. He, so it appears, adopted the reasons "amply stated in details in the relevant Misc. petition". This, therefore, so we are constrained to say, is not a complete order. Besides while appointing dr. Pratap Chandra Chunder - renowned social worker, eminent educationist, elderly statesman and ex-Central Minister for education - the learned Judge failed to consider that this was a job highly technical in nature. Reference was made from the side of the petitioners to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3863 of 1984 on 24-9-84 which runs in the following way:- "clause 25 of the contract between the parties provides for reference of the dispute between them to the sole abitration of the chief Engineer and if for any reasons he is unwilling or unable to act as an arbitrator, too the arbitration of a person appointed by him. The disputes between the parties involve questions of a technical nature. The disputes between the parties involve questions of a technical nature. In view of this, we set aside the order of the High court of Calcutta dated October, 5,1983 and direct that the Chief engineer or his nominee will enter upon the reference within 6 weeks from today and publish his award within 6 months the date of entering upon the reference. " 4. THUS Supreme Court deprecated the practice of appointing non-technical men to arbitrate in dispute involving questions of a technical nature dr. Chunder - his eminence not with standing is not a technical man and with all respect due to him we must say that his appointment as an arbitrator in the present dispute which is of a technical nature cannot be supported. The impugned order must be considered as bad on that account also. The learned Advocate for the opposite party cites A. K. Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal 1975[1) CLJ 52 where a Division Bench of this Court felt that by condoning the delay In appointment off the Arbitrator by the Chief Engineer, the Court had subordinated its jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Arbitration act to the action of the Chief Engineer taken long after the Court was in seisin of the judicial matter. In the case at hand also the Chief Engineer appointed his nominee on a date (7-10-88) later than the date (10-8-88) of filing of the petition. The learned Advocate also cites Excalcer vs. State of West Bengal ATR 1980 Cal. 86 where under similar circumstances it was observed that inaction on the part of the Chief Engineer for five months after service of notice raised presumption of negligence under Section 9 and a party would be entitled to move the Court for appointment of an arbitrator. The observations were made in the cited cases in the peculiar facts of those cases. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case and the observations of the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 3863 of 1984 we feel, however, that the impugned order in the present case must be set aside. 5. BEFORE we close we must comment on the unhappy manner in which these matters are dealt with by the departments which get jobs done through contractors on contracts containing a provision for arbitration. 5. BEFORE we close we must comment on the unhappy manner in which these matters are dealt with by the departments which get jobs done through contractors on contracts containing a provision for arbitration. Perhaps it win not be too much to say that in no tease the authority named in Clause 25 exercises his discretion within the time limit of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act it is difficult to understand why this should be so : 'does the notice of the contractor reach him or receives his attention only after the expiry of the relevant period. It that be so then why no effective step is taken to remedy this ? If the notice reaches the Authority in due time then why he does not take appropriate steps before the expiry of the statutory period ? Why nobody feels that the delay made during the crucial period lands the State in a very precarious situation besides giving an impression that the Departments or those responsible for running them, are reluctant to act according to Clause 25 and that they - for whatever reason - would rather like the disputes to be arbitrated upon by outsiders and riot by their own men ? The Chief Engineers must be very busy person; but this is also a problem which deserves their earnest attention. Given the inclination appropriate steps certainly can be taken to ensure that a notice calling upon the Chief Engineer to act as the arbitrator or to nominate his nominee reaches the Chief Engineer directly and immediately making it possible for him to react to it at once. Effective steps may also be taken to see that the process is not delayed anywhere and all elements inducing delay - human-or otherwise are eliminated unceremoniously. This is a situation which calls for prompt action and unless dealt with promptly and with a spirit of urgency is likely to develop as it usually does to the detriment of the interest of the State. This is a situation which calls for prompt action and unless dealt with promptly and with a spirit of urgency is likely to develop as it usually does to the detriment of the interest of the State. It thus behaves everybody concerned to see that each and every notice under Section 8 is invariably dealt with promptly and within due time thus leaving with the aggrieved party no option to have an outsider appointed as the arbitrator, who - for whatever reason - may not be a person to the liking of the Departments concerned and who not being a technical man may not be in a position to appreciate the issues involved in a proper way. The Court will appreciate if the steps as suggested above are taken and the aggrieved parties are not required to approach it with their petitions for appointment of arbitrators and the State is also not required to approach it for nullifying such appointments. The State may also take suitable steps for enhancement of the period by amending Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration Act appropriately. The period of taking action may be increased from one month to three months by amendment. Similar steps may also be taken to ensure that all appeals, revisions etc. are filed within the time allowed by the Law making it unnecessary for the State to approach the Court on each and every occasion with applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation act. A section within the Department may be set up and placed directly under the Chief Engineer for keeping track of all suits and cases including arbitration matters involving the Department and taking action promptly as and when the occasion arises. 6. BE that as it may, in view of what has been stated earlier the present revisional application must be allowed. Hence, it is ordered that the revisional application is hereby allowed on contest. The: impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judge. City Civil Court is hereby set aside. The nomination of the arbitrator by the Chief Engineer on 17-8-88 is hereby confirmed. The said arbitrator is hereby directed to enter upon the reference within six weeks from today and to publish his award within six months from the date of entering upon the reference. City Civil Court is hereby set aside. The nomination of the arbitrator by the Chief Engineer on 17-8-88 is hereby confirmed. The said arbitrator is hereby directed to enter upon the reference within six weeks from today and to publish his award within six months from the date of entering upon the reference. If the services of the arbitrator nominated by the Chief engineer is not available at present the Chief Engineer shall nominate another competent person as arbitrator in his place and he will carry out the order of this Court as stated above. Send copies of this judgment to the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge of the p. W. (Roads) Department Writers' Buildings, Calcutta and the Chief Engineer, p. W. (Roads) Department, Writers' Buildings Calcutta at once for their perusal and consideration. Application allowed.