Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent no. 6 died and thereafter, a substitution petition was filed, which was allowed and notice was directed to be issued. Subsequently, notice was validly served, however; respondent no. 6 preferred not to appear. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 too died and an interlocutory application, vide I.A. No. 7194 of 2013 was filed, which was allowed on 31-10-2013 (in C.W.J.C. No. 10718 of 2006). After the issuance of notices, legal heirs, who were substituted, appeared through their counsel by way of filing vakalatnama. On number of dates, none appeared on behalf of legal heirs of respondent no. 5 and as such, on 12-03-2015, while adjourning the case, due to non-appearance of learned counsel for private respondents, it was indicated that if on the next date, no one appears on behalf of private respondents, the Court may proceed and decide the same. Today again, none has appeared on behalf of legal heirs of respondent no. 5. Accordingly, the matter was heard at length in absence of learned counsel for private respondents.
