IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATISGARH) w. P. No. lé R9 OF 2003 PETITIONER A. K . Dey, S/o Late F. N. Dey Aged about 77 years, Occupation — Rtd. Government Servant R/o Mission Hospital Road Bilaspur [CG] throiJgh Power of Attorney Holdervgpal . Dey, S/o A.K. Dey, aged about 39 years, Occupation- Business, R/ o Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur [CG] VERSUS '(I 01. Chhattisgarh State Electdcity Board, through its Secretaly, Dangam'a, Raipu r (C.G.) 02. The Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, City Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) Collector, Bilaspur (QQJ i RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE m? wm’r IN NATURE m: r‘FR'rmPAm MANDAMI TS PROI—HRI’T‘ION AND OTHER QIIITARI.R WRIT OP V7PIT§ DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: my.“ WRIT PETITION No. 1646 $2002 : A.K.Dey. ERSUS : Chhat‘tisarh State Electricity oard & Others. Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for he rsdent o. I & 2 Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. (Passd on day o July, 010) e 15 f 2 This is an application under Order XXII Rule 4 read‘with section 151 ofthe Code f Civil Procdure, 1908 fo substitution f legal irs amely Smt. . o e r o he n Push Dey, Shri Utsav Dey and Shri Utpal Dey, o the deceased pa f petitionr, being e wife and son, respectivey. e th l A th 1. s per the averments made in the application, e sole petitioner died on 2 on t e 2.12.2004. The applicati is ime barred as prescribd under Article 120 f ti i othe Limitaon Act, 1963. On perusal of the papers, t is found that no reasons have been set out for condontion f delay and further no a o , application for condonation of delay in filing he apication for t pl substitution, has been filed. 2. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No- 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has died on 22.12.2004. Therealter, no steps 'have been taken to bring legal heirs of the petitioner ion record till 19.08.2009, when the aforesaid application was filed under the provisions ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908, though, it 1s not applicable to the writ i proceedings: \ / , / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER V RESPONDENTS g B WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J. t epon N ORDER ORAL LA. No. 1. cf 3. In support of the above contention, Shri Agrawal relies on a decision of Supreme Court in Puran Singh& Others v. State ofPurgiab & Others], wherein it was observed as under: “12. As such even if it is held that Order 22 ofthe Code is not applicable to writ proceedings or writ appeals, it does not mean that the petitioner or the appellant in such writ petition or writ appeal can ignore the death of the respondent if the right to pursue remedy even after death of the respondent survives. Aiter the death of the respondent it is incumbent on the pan of the petitioner or the appellant to substitute the heirs of such respondent Within a reasonable time, For purpose of holding asto ' what shall be reasonable time, the High Court may take note of the period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act for substituting the heirs of the deceased defendant or the respondent. However, there is no question of automatic abatement of the writ proceedings. Even if an application is filed beyond 90 days ofthe death of such respondent, the Court can take into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case for purpose of condoning the delay in filing the application for substitution ofthe legal representative. This power has to be exercised on well-known and settled principles in respect of exercise of discretionary power by the High Court. E the High Court is satisfied that delay, if any, in substituting the heirs of the deceased respondent was not intentional, and suhicient cause has been shown for not taking the steps earlier, the High Court can substitute the legal representatives and proceed with the hearing of the writ petition or the writ appeal, as the case may be. At the same time the High Court has to'be conscious that after lapse of time a valuable right accrues to the legal representative of the deceased respondent and he should not be compelled to contest a claim which due to the inaction of the petitioner or the appellant has become final.” 4. In the case on hand, no steps have been taken by the legal heirs on the intimation given by the respondents, to file an application within the prescribed time of 90 days. Further, it is foundthat there is no reason at all for condonation ofdelay beyond 90 days as prescribed under section 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, the application is dismissed. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is also dismissed. , '.‘~ '6 / 5&1 pawl, r K i ga€\5\.";d%e 1 (1996) 2 scc 205