Basant Khoya vs State Of Jharkhand & Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard learned counsel in I.A. No.7632 of 2025 for substitution of sole petitioner-Basant Khoya, who died during pendency of this writ petition in 2017.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that no information was received regarding the death of the petitioner, who is survived by his legal heirs and representatives, detailed in para 5 of the interlocutory application. After receiving the information, instant substitution petition has been filed.

No serious objection has been raised on behalf of respondents. Considering the submissions, I.A. No.7632 of 2025 is allowed. Office is directed to substitute the names of proposed legal heirs in red ink in the cause title of memo of writ petition.

I.A. No.7633 of 2025

Heard learned counsel in I.A. No.7633 of 2025 which has been filed for substitution of respondent nos.6 and 9 and for deleting the name of respondent no.8.

It is submitted by learned counsel that no informatory petition was filed under Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC and therefore, they were unaware about the death of the respondents and once this information was received, substitution petition has been filed. It is further submitted that so far respondent no.8 is concerned, he died issueless and therefore, his name needs to be deleted from the cause title of the instant writ petition. So far respondent no.9 is concerned, he is survived by the heirs and descendants as detailed in para 3 of the interlocutory application.

Learned counsel on behalf of respondents have raised serious objection to the substitution of respondent nos. 6. It is submitted that in counter affidavit dated 09.12.2009 in para 2, there was specific averment regarding death of respondent no.6, in 2006, even before filing of the instant writ petition, despite this, no step was taken and the substitution petition has been filed after undue delay.

Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides and in view of the fact that informatory petition was filed with respect to respondent no.6. As a matter of fact, he had died before preferring the instant writ petition, consequently substitution petition with respect to respondent no.6, is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected.

So far respondent no.9 is concerned, considering the grounds taken, substitution petition is, allowed. Office is directed to substitute the name of legal heirs and representatives as detailed in the memo of writ petition in place of respondent no.9. Let the name of respondent no.8 be deleted from the cause title of the memo of writ.

I.A. No.7633 of 2025 is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No. 2938 of 2008

Learned counsel on behalf of respondents seeks adjournment to seek instruction from the substituted heirs.

Let this case be listed on 14.07.2025.