JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup. J.—This order will dispose of O. M. P. (M) No. 16 of 1992, which has been filed under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the firm of M/s. S. S. Kochhar and Company filed a petition before the Himachal Bench of the Delhi High Court (as it then was) in the year 1968, with a prayer that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute arising out of the contract executed between the parties, namely, the Company and the State through the Forest Department. That application was decided by an order dated 9th September, 1968, the operative part thereof is reproduced below : "The result is that the arbitration agreement contained in the agreement (Ex. P-I) is ordered to be filed in the Court and the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmur District is appointed Sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement, Should the Deputy Commissioner be either unable or unwilling to act as such he shall nominate one of his Assistants in the District to act as Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference and make his award within the period prescribed by law. The file of the case is ordered to be consigned to record. Although the petitioner has failed in the main relief claimed to by it, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs." 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner Sirmour nominated one Shri Surinder Pal, the then Revenue Assistant Nahan as sole Arbitrator on 9th October, 1968 to decide the dispite between the parties. Thereafter, the sole Arbitrator, named above/entered upon a reference and the parties filed their claims and counter-claims before nun. It appears that the arbitration proceedings could not be completed within the time prescribed by law, i. e., four months. The record indicates that several extensions were granted by the Court for making the award The proceedings continued till 5th July, 1973. The proceedings could not continue beyond that date as the Arbitrator was transferred from Nahan in his place the Deputy Commissioner nominated one Shri Chopra the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paonta as sole Arbitrator. The record indicates that several extensions were granted by the Court for making the award The proceedings continued till 5th July, 1973. The proceedings could not continue beyond that date as the Arbitrator was transferred from Nahan in his place the Deputy Commissioner nominated one Shri Chopra the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paonta as sole Arbitrator. The jurisdiction of the successor arbitrator was challenged by the applicant-State On this he referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, for clarification The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, made a reference to the Registry of this Court on the administrative side. It appears that thereafter the arbitration proceedings remained stalled, for the reasons, which are not necessary to be mentioned here. 4. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard It is clear from the record that the applicant, through its officers of the Forest Diriment, was negligent in pursuing the case. Needlessly, the authority and jurisdiction of the successor arbitrator was challenged on its behalf Moreover, the case has a long chequered history Instead of making an appropriate application at the right time for extension of the period for making the award, the applicant indulged in. fruitless correspondence Moreover, the law is quite clear that a party, which is guilty of unreasonable delay and laches, cannot be given any latitude by the Court Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Mis Hindustan Steel Ltd v Amarnath Sharma, AIR 1971 Orissa 288 ; P K. Varkay v State of Kerala 1988 (2) Arbitration Law Reporter 197 and Union of India v. Som Nath Chadha, Rajdhani Law Reporter 452, AH these three authorities are concerning the provisions of the Arbitration Act. 5. The learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the State has to recover an amount of Rs 9 66 lacs from the Company, i e , the opposite party, and if the arbitration proceedings are not revived and time for making the award is not extended then the State will suffer a great loss. In the circumstances of the case this submission is of no avail to the applicant as the proceedings Wore the Arbitrator have remained static due to its own fault. In the considered view of this Court, it is not an appropriate case for exercising its discretion under section 28 of the Arbitration Act. In the circumstances of the case this submission is of no avail to the applicant as the proceedings Wore the Arbitrator have remained static due to its own fault. In the considered view of this Court, it is not an appropriate case for exercising its discretion under section 28 of the Arbitration Act. Both the parties can avail of the remedies provided by law, if so advised in the matter. 6. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.