FINAL ORDER

22.05.2024 FPA-29/MDS/2001 This Appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for non-prosecution.

The Writ Petition bearing No. 17698/2014 was thereupon filed by the Appellant to challenge the order.

It is stated that the Appellant died during the pendency of the Writ Petition and accordingly the application to bring his legal heirs was filed. It was allowed by the High Court and Writ Petition was heard finally and disposed of by the order dated 02^nd December, 2020. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal with a request to decide the Appeal expeditiously.

We however do not find an application to bring legal heirs of the Appellant on record or application to amend the cause title though on the remand of the case, the application should have been filed immediately. Till date, no application for substitution of deceased Appellant or for amendment of cause title has been filed thus the present Appeal ramains in the hands of a dead person. The application in the Writ Petition for substitution cannot be taken for this Appeal as each proceeding has to be taken as per its record.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Vakalatnama has been filed to represent the legal heirs who are coming from remote area of State of Tamilnadu thus they could not file an application for substitution of deceased.

We find that this Appeal is in hands of the dead person and the Vakalatnama cannot be entertained in reference to the legal heirs not brought on record and even the amended cause title has not been filed. It is now settled law of land that even if provision of C.P.C. are not applicable for substitution of the deceased, it would still go in the terms of Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. of CPC. The reasonable period for substitution would be of 90 days, as given under Article 120 of Limitation Act. The relevant para of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Shri Puran Singh V/s. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 2 SCC 205 is quoted hereunder:-

“As such even if it is held that Order 22 of the 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 appeal can ignore the death of the respondent if the right to pursue remedy even after death of the respondent survives. After the death of the respondent it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner or the appellant to substitute the heirs of such respondent within a reasonable time. For purpose of holding as to what shall be a reasonable time, the High Court may take note of the period prescribed of holding 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 of the 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 of the legal representatives. This power has to be exercised on well- known and settled principles in respect of exercise of discretionary power by the High Court. If the High Court is satisfied that delay, if any, in substituting the heirs of the deceased respondent was not intentional, and sufficient 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.”

This Tribunal has passed a detailed order dealing with the similar issue though in reference to the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and not under subject matter but ratio prop