Ranganath Mishra

1. We have already a public interest litigation filed by Mr R.S. Sodhi, an advocate of this Court related to the killings and the matter has been taken cognizance of by this Court. Even counter-affidavits have been filed by some of the respondents . We do not consider it necessary that there should be another public interest litigation over the same issue. Accordingly we decline to entertain the writ petition.

W. P. No. 11 18 of 1991

2. Learned Advocate-General appearing for the S tate of U.P. says that all possible protection would be provided to the legal representatives and other persons who would like to appear before the Commissioner and no harassment would be permitted to be caused to them by the local police. 3. We are of the view that for an effective disposal of the writ petition Union of India should be impleaded as a party. Mr Sodhi has told us that given a weeks time such a petition will be filed. When such a petition is filed notice may issue to the Union of India without the matter being listed again. The matter is fixed for September 25, 1991 for Union of Indias response.

4. The learned Advocate-General has further told us that all arrangements have been made to make the Commissions sittings effective and the inquiry would commence soon. As an interim measure of compensation we direct that in respect of each of the deaths (total number being ten) an interim compensation of Rs 50, 000 (Rupees fifty thousand) shall be paid within four weeks from today.