Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- Peoples Union for Democratic Rights, an organisation said to be committed to the upholding of fundamental rights of citizens has filed this application under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It is alleged that on 19th April, 1986, 600 to 700 poor peasants and landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound of Gandhi Library in Arwal, a place within the District of Gaya in the State of Bihar. Without any previous warning by the police or any provocation on the part of the people who had so collected, the Superintendent of Police, Respondent No. 3 herein, reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering and opened fire as a result of which several people were injured and at least 21 persons including children died. The petitioner alleged that separate unofficial inquiries have been held into the atrocity and the reports indicated that the number of deaths was much more than 21 and there was no justification for the firing. It appears that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26 decimals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at Arwal and to such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side and members of nine poor families on the other were parties. Even though several people died and many more were injured by the ruthless and unwarranted firing resorted to by the police, to give a cover to the atrocities, the police started a false case being Arwal P. S. Case No. 59 of 1986 and therein implicated several innocent people including even some of the people who had been killed in the firing. Three specific prayers were made in the writ petition, namely : -

(1) To issue an appropriate writ or make an order or direction in the matter of payment of full and proper compensation to the victims - relations of the dead and to the people who were injured by police firing ;

(2) For a direction to withdraw the police case referred to above ; and

(3) For a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to settle the land in dispute with the nine poor families.

2. During the hearing of the matter, an additional relief was pressed, namely, this Court should give a direction for instituting a judicial inquiry into the alleged atrocity.

3. It may be pointed out that during the pendency of this writ application the State Government in response to the growing demand for a judicial inquiry into the matter directed an inquiry therein by Shri Vinod Kumar, Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. The said inquiry has been completed and the report has already been furnished to the Government. On the orders of the Court, the report has been produced before this Court with a claim of privilege against disclosure thereof.

4. The incident drew a lot of publicity and attention both within the State as also outside. Coming to know about it, Shri B. D. Sharma, Assistant Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes visited the locality and made a report. At the instance of the petitioner, that document was summoned and has been produced. In respect thereof the Union Government has also claimed privilege.

5. In the affidavits in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents the factual assertions raised in the writ petition have been disputed. It has also been brought to our notice that a writ petition has been filed before the Patna High Court prior to filing of -SC356 this application under Art. 32 before this Court and the writ petition in the High Court is still pending. Once this fact was brought to our notice, Mr. Mukati for the petitioner submitted that we should direct transfer of the writ petition pending in the High Court to this Court so that both the matters can be heard together. We are of the view that it would be appropriate that the matter is examined by the High Court. It would be convenient to the parties to produce material. before the High Court on account of proximity; the High Court will be in a position to call for documents and,