[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
The State Of Odisha And vs Tanmaya Kumar Sahoo And on 9 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.339 of 2017
The State Of Odisha and ..... Appellant
another
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
-versus-
Tanmaya Kumar Sahoo and ..... Respondent
another
Represented by Adv. -
M/s. K.K. Swain, P.N.
Mohanty, B. Jena,
S.C.D. Dash, P.K.
Mohanty, U. Chhotray,
R.P. Das, P.K.
Mohapatra, K. Swain
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.03.2026
Order No.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. This is an application at the instance of the legal heirs of the
deceased-Respondent to be substituted in place of the deceased, sole
Respondent.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the I.A. Petitioner at the outset
contended that the above noted F.A.O. was filed at the instance of
the State challenging judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed in G.I.A.
Case No.572 of 2013 under Section 24(C) of Orissa Education Act,
1969 by the learned State Educational Tribunal. He further
contended that the above noted GIA case was filed at the instance of
the original Respondent to the F.A.O. and the present Petitioners,
who happens to be the legal heirs of the said applicant before the
Tribunal. Mr. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the I.A.
Petitioner further contended that the Respondent No.1, namely
Tanmaya Kumar Sahoo died on 03.11.2018 during the pendency of
the F.A.O. before this Court. To support such contention he also
referred to the death certificate which has been annexed to the I.A.
application as Annexure-A/3 to the I.A. application. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner also referred to the legal heir certificate issued by
the competent authority which has also been annexed to the writ
petition as Annexure-B/3.
4. Learned counsel for the I.A. Petitioner also contended that
although the application for substitution was pending for
consideration, the F.A.O. was taken up on 16.10.2019 by a Single
Judge Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice. By virtue of
order dated 16.10.2019 the appeal has been disposed of in the light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State
of Odisha and another v. Anup Kumar Senapati and another in
Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019. While assailing order dated
16.10.2019 learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that such
order has been passed against a dead person. As such, the same is a
nullity.
5. On a careful examination of the case record, it appears that by
the time order dated 16.10.2019 was passed by the Single Bench of
this Court, the sole Respondent, namely Tanmaya Kumar Sahoo was
already dead. Therefore, order dated 16.10.2019 has been passed
against a dead person. As such, it was contended by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that such order is a nullity in the eye of law
has substantiated.
6. Further, attention of this Court was brought to I.A. No.1544 of
2019 filed by the present I.A. Petitioner with a prayer to recall order
dated 16.10.2019 passed in F.A.O. No.339 of 2017. In the said I.A.
application the legal heirs of Respondent No.1 had approached this
Court for recalling of order dated 16.10.2019 on the ground that the
same was passed against a dead person. Such application is still
pending for consideration. Along with the aforesaid I.A. No.1544 of
2019 the Petitioner has also filed I.A. No.1545 of 2019 with a prayer
for condonation of delay, if any, in approaching this Court for
substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased-Respondent No.1.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand did not dispute
the fact that the sole Respondent in the appeal, namely Tanmaya
Kumar Sahoo died on 03.11.2018. Learned counsel for the State-
Appellant further contended that since they have no information
with regard to the death of the Respondent No.1, no steps were taken
by the State-Appellant to substitute the deceased-Respondent in the
pending F.A.O.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts, further taking note of the fact that the sole
Respondent, namely Tanmaya Kumar Sahoo died on 03.11.2018, i.e.
prior to the passing of final order dated 16.10.2019, this Court is of
the view that order dated 16.10.2019 is a nullity in the eye of law,
inasmuch as, the same was passed against a dead person.
Furthermore, this Court holds that there is no delay in filing the
application which was registered as I.A. No.455 of 2019. As such,
I.A. No.1545 of 2019 is disposed of as not pressed.
9. Since a specific prayer has been made in I.A. No.455 of 2019
to substitute the I.A. Petitioners in place of the deceased-Respondent
No.1, in the light of the aforesaid discussion as well as the
documents annexed to the I.A. application, such prayer for
substitution is allowed. Accordingly, the I.A. No.455 of 2019 stands
disposed of as allowed. Consolidated copy of the cause title be
uploaded by 11.03.2026.
10. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, I.A.
No.1544 of 2019 which has been filed with a prayer to recall order
dated 16.10.2019, this Court is of the view that the same is bound to
be allowed as such order dated 16.10.2019 has been passed against a
dead person. Accordingly, order dated 16.10.2019 is hereby recalled.
11. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
12. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
13. It is stated by the learned counsels appearing for the parties
that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the
judgment of this Court so passed on 19.03.2025 in FAO No.509 of
2014 and batch.
14. In view of such submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the present FAO is disposed of in the light
of the judgment so passed in FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
