The court emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural orders regarding the substitution of deceased parties and verification of live status in ongoing proceedings.

ORDER :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. Reference may be made to the order dated 3^rd September, 2024, which reads as under:-

“1. For compliance of the order dated 08.01.2024, further adjournment has been sought for by the learned counsel for the State.

2. It appears that respondent No.22 is no more and as such learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to file the substitution petition.

3. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to make an enquiry and submit a report regarding the live status of the parties in the present proceeding.

4. As prayed for, put up this case on 15.10.2024.”

2. The writ petition was, thereafter, taken up on 15^th October, 2024 and on the said date following order was passed:-

“ Counsel for the parties are present.

2. By virtue of order dated 03.09.2024 the State was directed to make an enquiry and submit a report regarding the live status of the parties in the present proceeding.

3. The counsel for the State has submitted that report has not been filed in the present case.

4. In order to facilitate the conduct of the enquiry by the State, the counsel for the petitioners is directed to file self- attested copies of Aadhar Card of each of the petitioners by way of supplementary affidavit by 11.11.2024.

5. State is directed to comply the order dated 03.09.2024 and file affidavit by 02.12.2024.

6. Post this case on 03.12.2024.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the order dated 15^th October, 2024, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners annexing self-attested photostat copies of Aadhar Cards of each of the petitioners, except the petitioner no.7-Dineshwar Mandal, who has died during pendency of the writ petition on 22^nd May, 2024.

4. I.A. No.11609 of 2024 has been filed for substitution of the petitioner no.7, who has died during pendency of the writ petition on 22^nd May, 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.7 has died leaving behind his son- Binay Kumar Verma as his heir/legal representative, whose description has been given in paragraph no.2 of the said interlocutory application. Hence, he may be permitted to be substituted in place of the deceased petitioner no.7.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the said interlocutory application, let heir/legal representative of the petitioner no.7 be substituted in his place, whose description has been in paragraph no.2.

7. Necessary substitution in the cause title of the writ petition be made by the counsel for the petitioners in course of the day.

8. I.A. No.11609 of 2024 is, accordingly, disposed of.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Vakalatnama on behalf of substituted petitioner has been filed along with the said interlocutory application. He further submits that at present all the concerned villages in which the petitioners and private respondents reside fall under Debipur Police Station.

10. Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the Officer-in-charge of Debipur Police Station is directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to life status of the petitioners as well as private respondents. The said report shall be submitted by filing supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the State within six weeks.

11. I.A. No.10479 of 2024 filed by intervenors, namely, Asin Miyan @ Yasin Miyan and Md. Hasan Jan seeking intervention in the matter will be considered after submission of the enquiry report.

12. Put up this case under the heading “For Orders” after six weeks.