Jharkhand High Court
Daroga Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 11 of 2022
1. Daroga Pandit, aged 64 years, son of Late Laxmi Pandit
2. Kiran Prajapati, aged 50 years, wife of Late Jagan Lal Pandit @
Jaglal Pandit.
3. Gyanti Devi, aged 44 years, wife of Late Shambhu Pandit @
Shambhu Kumar Pandit.
4. Sneha Laxmi, aged 21 years, daughter of Late Shambhu Pandit @
Shambhu Kumar Pandit.
5. Swadiksha Raj Laxmi, aged 17 years, daughter of Late Shambhu
Pandit @ Shambhu Kumar Pandit.
6. Adarsh Raj Laxmi, aged 11 years, son of daughter of Late Shambhu
Pandit @ Shambhu Kumar Pandit.
7. Mahesh Kumar Pandit, aged 51 years, son of Late Laxmi Pandit @
Laxmi Narayan Pandit.
all residents of Hesal, near Narayan Dharamsala Devi Mandap Road,
P.O. Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi.
Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are minor and as such they are being
represented through their mother and natural guardian i.e., Gyanti
Devi (Petitioner No. 3). ... ... Respondents/Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.
GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District
- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi, P.O. GPO, P.S.
Kotwali, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties
5. Manoj Oraon, son of son of Late Goleya Oraon.
6. Lalita Oraon, wife of Late Goya Oraon.
7. Muskan Oraon, daughter of Late Goya Oraon.
8. Dodo Oraon, son of Late Goya Oraon.
9. Sonali Oraon, daughter of Late Goya Oraon
10(i) Smt. Sushma Oraon wife of Virsa Oraon
10(ii) Samir Toppo, son of Virsa Oraon
10(iii) Munku Toppo, son of Virsa Oraon
10(iv) Anuna Toppo, Daughter of Virsa Oraon
10(v) Nisha Toppo, Daughter of Virsa Oraon
Respondent 10(ii) to 10(v) are minors and as such they are being
represented through their mother & legal guardian Smt. Sushma
Oraon [Respondent no. 10(i)]
11. Somri Oraon, wife of Late Mahadeo Oraon
12. Bicky Toppo, son of Late Somra Oraon
13. Sandip Oraon, son of Late Somra Oraon.
all residents of Dayal Nagar, Chhotka Toli, Hesal, P.O. Hesal, P.S.
Sukhdeo Nagar, District - Ranchi.
1
2
Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are minor and as such they are being
represented through their mother and natural guardian i.e., Lalita
Oraon (Respondent No. 6).
... ... Petitioners/Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate
For private Opp. Parties : Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III
---
16/04.09.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This civil review has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For an appropriate order from this Hon'ble Court for review
of the judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by this
Hon'ble Court presided over by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha
Rawat Choudhary in W.P. (C) No. 548 of 2005, whereby and
whereunder the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to dispose of
the said writ petition."
3. Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate submits that the respondent no.
10(i) though has been served with notice, but she is not interested in
pursuing this case and therefore, she has not given her the
Vakalatnama for appearance. She submits that appropriate order may
be passed.
4. Mr. Kashish Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that this petition has been filed for review of the
judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No. 548 of 2005 on the ground that the day on which the order was
passed, one of the respondents namely Shambhu Pandit had already
expired. He submits that the writ petition was filed way back in the
year 2005 and the order was passed on 07.09.2018 and at that point of
time, it could not be pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the private respondents in the writ petition that Shambhu
Pandit had already expired. He submits that the order of the writ Court
having been passed without substituting Shambhu Pandit in the writ
record, the same be recalled and the writ petition may be heard afresh.
He further submits that the petitioners in this review petition are the
legal heirs and successors of Shambhu Pandit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that all
the three writ petitioners have passed away. So far as the writ
petitioner no. 1 Goleya Oraon is concerned, he died in the year 2019
after the disposal of the writ petition and details of his legal heirs have
been placed on record in the review petition. So far as writ petitioner
no. 2 Mahadeo Oraon is concerned, he expired in the year 2017 and
details of his legal heirs have also been placed on record. So far as the
writ petitioner no. 3 namely Somra Oraon is concerned, he passed
away in the year 2018 and details of his legal heirs have also been
mentioned in paragraph 16 of this review petition. The private
respondent no. 5(ii) in the writ petition namely, Jagan Lal Pandit is
said have expired on 14.03.2017 and Shambhu Pandit i.e. private
respondent no. 5(iii) in the writ petition is said to have expired on
01.11.2015. The legal heirs of Shambhu Pandit are also the petitioners
before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
appropriate petition will be filed in the writ petition so that Shambhu
Pandit is substituted and the writ Court may pass fresh order.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no serious
objection to the prayer and the fact that Shambhu Pandit had expired
prior to disposal of the writ petition is not in dispute. The death
certificate of Shambhu Pandit has already been placed on record in the
review petition.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that
some of the writ petitioners and some of the private respondents had
expired during the pendency of the writ petition, but the fact of their
death was not brought on record. The details of the legal heirs of
deceased persons who were party in the writ petition have been
mentioned from paragraph 12 to paragraph 16 of this review petition.
9. No counter-affidavit as such has been filed to the review
petition.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the legal heirs
of deceased writ petitioners/private respondents in the writ petition
having not been substituted prior to passing of the final order in the
writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated
07.09.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 548 of 2005 is required to be
recalled so that the matter be reheard after taking appropriate steps
with regards to the deceased persons. Learned counsel for the parties
have submitted that they will take appropriate steps in the writ
petition.
11. Accordingly, the order passed in the writ petition being
W.P.(C) No. 548 of 2005 which is under review is recalled.
12. This civil review petition is accordingly allowed.
13. Office is directed to place W.P.(C) No. 548 of 2005 before
appropriate Bench as per roster after taking due permission from
Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
