KIRPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the medium of this appeal, the appellant-writ respondent No. 5 has questioned the Order and judgment dated 11th October, 2012, passed in CWP (T) No. 8821 of 2008, whereby appointment of appellant-writ respondent No. 5 as Part Time Water Carrier was quashed and set aside and writ respondents No. 1 to 3 were directed to offer appointment to the writ petitioner as Part Time Water Carrier, in terms of the impugned judgment.

(2.) THE main ground taken in this appeal is that the writ petitioner, namely, Satya Bhushan, had passed away, when the matter was heard and the impugned judgment was made.

(3.) IT appears that the Writ Court has lost sight of the fact that the writ petitioner had died at the time of hearing of the writ petition and even at the time of making the impugned judgment. The writ petition had to abate in terms of mandate of Order XXII Rules 1 & 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short "the CPC".