1 Serial No. 19 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC[WP(C)] No. 36 of 2025 in WP(C) No. 139 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Director, North Eastern Police Academy, Umsaw-793123, Meghalaya. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001. ::::: Applicants -Vs- Smti. Veena Dhoundiyal W/o (L) Ramesh Chandra R/o- Near RTO Check Post Mohabbewala, Dehradun, Dehradun Sadar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248002. ::::: Opposite Party Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge 2025:MLHC:258-DB 2 Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Ms. K. Gurung, Adv. vice Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Per W. Diengdoh, (J): JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Ms. K. Gurung, learned counsel for the applicants, who has submitted that in course of proceedings of the instant writ petition, the sole respondent has since expired, the information in this regard is preceded by production of the death certificate issued by the Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, wherein it was indicated that the date of death of the respondent was 27.11.2024. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel that consequently, the sole respondent is required to be substituted by his legal heir or legal representatives. To this effect, the applicant has indicated in the petition that the wife of the deceased respondent is required to be substituted in his place, the name of the wife is Smti. Veena Dhoundiyal. 3. Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the opposite party has 2025:MLHC:258-DB 3 submitted that he is under instruction to appear for the respondent as well as for the wife of the deceased respondent, and has no objection to the prayer made for substitution. 4. Accordingly, on consideration of the submission made, we are of the view that the prayer of the applicants merits consideration, the same is allowed. The deceased respondent is hereby duly substituted by his legal heir, Smti. Veena Dhoundiyal. 5. In view of the above, this Misc. Case is disposed of. (B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh) Judge Judge 2025:MLHC:258-DB Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2025.04.02 19:01:40 IST