The State Of Uttar Pradesh (Industrial Development) vs. Brahma Dev

ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33386- 33400/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-08-2017 in WC No. 58459/2013 03-08-2017 in WC No. 42339/2012 03-08-2017 in WC No. 65810/2011 03-08-2017 in WC No. 68545/2013 03-08-2017 in WC No. 67898/2013 03-08-2017 in WC No. 64070/2013 03-08-2017 in WC No. 62474/2013 03-08-2017 in WC No. 48929/2013 03-08-2017 in WC No. 68504/2012 03-08-2017 in WC No. 68388/2012 03-08-2017 in WC No. 29119/2012 03-08-2017 in WC No. 12609/2012 03-08-2017 in WC No. 10004/2012 03-08-2017 in WC No. 61797/2013 03-08-2017 in WC No. 29011/2012 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

GORAKHPUR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

BRAHMA DEV & ORS. Respondent(s)

IA No. 46286/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 46282/2019 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER

WITH

12:39:16 IST Reason:

SLP(C) No. 13200-13214/2018 (XI) IA No. 63965/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

SLP(C) No. 19823-19837/2018 (XI)

Date : 14-12-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Adv.<br>Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.<br>Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
	Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR<br>Ms. Shradha Agrawal, Adv.
	Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Adv.<br>Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhojnagarwala, Adv.

M/S. Anuradha & Associates, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No. 46286 of 2019

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain respondents who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court and even before the High Court, the proceedings qua them stood abated. In this reference, the learned counsel submits that the names of such respondents, mentioned at Para 8 of the application, be deleted from the array of parties.

The application is allowed. The names of the respondents, mentioned at Para 8 of the application, are deleted from the array of parties at the risk of the petitioner(s).

I.A.No. 46282 of 2019

This application is filed taking the substituted service in reference to which permission is granted vide order dated 19.11.2018. The mode of substituted service has been placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be considered as 'sufficient service'.

This application has already been allowed vide order dated 19.11.2018. The mode of substituted service adopted by the petitioner is considered as 'sufficient service'.

The served respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

It is informed that as per the Office Report, four respondents, as mentioned at Page 16 of the application, who are said to be 'dead' are in fact, 'alive' and they may be treated as served in terms of the paper publication.

Ordered accordingly, as prayed for.

SLP (C) Nos. 13200-13214 of 2018

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that formal notice has not been issued in these petitions.

Since the respondents have been served in the connected Special Leave Petitions, notice need not be served in the instant petitions.

Notice is deemed to be served on the respondents, except those respondents who have been deleted hereinabove.

List the Special Leave Petitions after four weeks.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (VIRENDER SINGH) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER