WP(C) 2810/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr SK Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms VL Singh, learned State counsel for the official respondents. Having regard to the relief prayed for, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. The petitioner’s pleaded case is that her husband late Birmangal Singha who was, at the relevant time, a truck driver, was killed along with six police personnel on 20.4.2009 by suspected D.H.D(J) extremists near Lonku village, Umra ngso-Lank Road. In respect of the said incident meanwhile Umrangso P.S. Case No. 11/09 under Section 120B/121/121(A)/ 353/302/382/427 IPC read with Section 27 A rms Act and Section 4 of the E.S. Act has been registered. In terms of the policy providing for ex-gratia grant amounting to Rs. 3 Lakhs to the next kin of persons killed in extremist/ terrorist violence in the State as contemplated in the Notification No. ABP.121/92/ Pt.V/135 dated 22.6.20 04 read with the Notification No. RR.69/2004/16 dated 14.12.2004, the petitioner meanwhile has submitted representations before the Deputy Commissioner, N.C. Hi lls, Haflong and the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Relief & Re habilitation Department on 1.12.2009 seeking release of an amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs as admissible on this count. As the said representations have remained pending without any effective steps to redress her grievance, she is before this Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, more particularly, the representations referred to hereinabove, it is considered exp edient to close this proceeding with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, N.C . Hills to cause necessary steps to be taken to enquire into the facts narrate d in the representations and if on due scrutiny the same are found to be correct , to take appropriate steps in accordance with the policy as embodied in the afo rementioned notifications. Needless to say, if the aforementioned authority is of the view that in order to arrive at a correct conclusion of fact it is essential to associate the petitioner in the process, he would without any reservation do so. As the petitioner waits in expectation, if her claim is tenable in law t here should not be any undue delay in completing the process. In any view of the matter, having regard to the nature of the relief sought for, the exercise as ordered should be completed within a period of six weeks from t he date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.