PIL 123/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) 1. Two unfortunate incidents of police firing occurred at Tura and Williamn agar of the State of Meghalaya on 30th September, 2005. While four persons lost their lives in the Tura incident, five persons died in the incident of police fi ring at Williamnagar. A large number of persons were injured. The Government of Meghalaya by notification dated 3rd of January 2006 constituted two separate one -man Commission of Enquiry headed by two retired Judges of this Court to enquire into the incidents of police firing that had occurred on 30th September, 2005. While Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. N. Choudhury (retd.) conducted the enquiry in resp ect of the Tura incident, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. N. Baruah (retd.) conducted the enquiry in respect of the Williamnagar incident. 2. The reports of the two Commissions of Enquiry were submitted to the Stat e Government in the year 2007. While Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. N. Choudhury (retd.) found lapses on the part of the district administration in handling the situati on at Tura on the day of the incident, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. N. Baruah (retd.) took the view that resort to force by the police personnel in respect of the Wil liamnagar incident was justified. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances these PILs have been filed, essentially, seeking an order from the Court for an investigation by the Central Bureau of In vestigation (C.B.I.) in respect of both the incidents so as to determine the cri minal liability of such persons who may be identified to be so liable. Payment o f compensation and such other compensatory relief(s) have also been prayed for i n the two PILs filed. 4. We have heard Sri S. Bharali, learned counsel for the petitioners in PIL No.17 of 2007 and Mr. A. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in PIL No.123 of 2007. We have also heard Dr. B. P. Todi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Meghalaya, Sri D. C. Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. Counsel and Sr i A. C. Buragohain, learned Standing Counsel, C.B.I. 5. Insofar as an enquiry by the C.B.I. into the two incidents is concerned , we have noticed that after receipt of the reports of the two Commissions of En quiry the State of Meghalaya, in the Home Department, by letter dated 22.9.2008, had requested the Government of India to consider an investigation into the two incidents by the C.B.I. In response to the said communication dated 22.9.2008 of the State Government the Deputy Secretary (V-II) of the Govt. of India, in th e Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) had written a letter dated 12th December, 2009 to the Deputy Secretary of the Go vt. of Meghalaya. In the said letter it has been mentioned that on due examinati on of the request of the State Government and having regard to the fact that a p eriod of over three years had elapsed in the meantime the Government of India di d not consider it feasible to entrust the matters to the C.B.I. for investigatio n. 6. The above facts would go to show that the State of Meghalaya, in fact, h ad requested the Government of India for a C.B.I. investigation into the two inc idents. The Government of India, on due examination, took the decision that in t he totality of the facts of the case any such investigation by the C.B.I. would be a futile exercise. In the meantime another two years have rolled by and the i ncident, as on date, is nearly five years old. There are also no materials on th e record of the cases on the basis of which the Court can come to even a prima facie conclusion regarding the liability of any person in criminal law for any a ct or action taken in respect of the incidents in question. In such a situation we are of the considered view that the present is not a fit case for exercise of our powers under Article 226 to direct a C.B.I. investigation of the incidents. Rather, we are of the view that there are certain other aspects of the case whi ch should receive the attention of the Court. 7. From the affidavit dated 7.4.2009 filed by the Deputy Secretary to the G overnment of Meghalaya, Political Department, it transpires that the families of each of the nine persons who died in the two incidents of police firing have al ready been provided with a sum of Rs.6 lakhs, each, as ex gratia payment. The am ount of ex gratia, in our considered view, is just and fair and therefore will n ot call for any interference by us. From the aforesaid affidavit it also transpi res that 13 persons, in all, who had received serious injuries were brought to G uwahati and hospitalized in two private hospitals i.e. Down Town Hospital and Gu wahati Neurological Research Centre (GNRC). A sum of over rupees twenty one lakh s has been paid to the two Hospitals for the treatment of the aforesaid 13 injur ed persons. Of the 13 injured persons six were admitted in the Down Town Hospita l and presumably the remaining seven in the GNRC. In the affidavit filed it has been stated that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been paid to each of the injured perso ns who received treatment in the Down Town Hospital. Nothing has, however, been mentioned in respect of payment of such compensation to the other seven injured persons. If some of the injured persons who were brought to Guwahati for medical treatment have been paid compensation to the extent of Rs.25,000/- each, such c ompensation should have also been paid to the other seven injured persons. We ar e, therefore, of the view that the aforesaid seven injured persons being similar ly situated the State should offer a compensation package of the same amount i.e . Rs.25,00/- to the aforesaid seven injured persons whose names and particulars have been mentioned in the affidavit of the State Government. Naturally, if such compensation has already been paid the same need not be paid again. 8. From the materials enclosed to the affidavit of the State Government it also transpires that the next of kin of the five victims of the Williamnagar inc ident have been provided appointment in Government service on compassionate grou nd. While the said gesture on the part of the State has to be appreciated, it wa s necessary for the State to indicate in the affidavit filed whether similar tre atment had been given to the victims of the Tura firing incident. As no statemen t to the said effect has been made in the counter-affidavit of the State Governm ent we are of the view that the next of kin of the four victims of the Tura inci dent be also provided with appointment in Government service by the State, if th e same has not already been done. 9. It will be necessary to mention, at this stage, that at an earlier stage of the proceeding we were informed that departmental proceedings had been initi ated against three officers i.e. Smt. L. R. Sangma, IAS, Smt. S. N. Marak, MCS a nd Sri O. Pasi, MPS with regard to their specific acts or omissions in connectio n with the two incidents. By our earlier orders passed in the two PILs we had di rected expeditious disposal of the departmental proceedings initiated against th e aforesaid three officers. At the hearing today the learned Additional Advocate General, Meghalya, has placed before us the final orders in the departmental pr oceedings initiated against the aforesaid three officers by which each of the th ree officers have been exonerated. As the departmental proceedings against the t hree officers have been concluded by passing of final orders by the Chief Secret ary of the State we are of the view that any probe into the conduct of any of th e said proceedings in the present PILs will not be appropriate. Instead, we leav e it open for any aggrieved person to pursue the matter, if so advised. 10. The issues arising in the PILs under consideration having been answered in the above manner we deem it appropriate to close both the PILs by directing consequential action in terms of our present order to be taken forthwith and wit hout any delay.