The responsibility of the State Government to provide required expenses for the Commission, especially when it considers the witnesses to be important and relevant, cannot be objected to.

H. R. PANWAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a participant before the Justice Kokje Commission of Enquiry (Bhinmal Incident), (hereinafter to be referred as the Commission) has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision taken by the Commission not to examine certain witnesses on the ground of expediency.

( 2 ) IT is contended that the Commission had earlier held that the witnesses were important as they were present with the deceased Muni Lokendra Vijay in the circumstances leading to whose death, the Comission has been enquiring into but the Commission has decided not to examine them because they were in Tamil Nadu and being Jain Munis (Sadhus) normally do not use conveyance and, therefore, cannot reach Rajasthan before the year 2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this cannot be a valid reason for not examining the witnesses whose testimony would throw sufficient light on the circumstances leading to the death of Muni Lokendra Vijay.

( 3 ) NOTICES were issued to the State of Rajasthan and the Commission.

( 4 ) SHRI Sandeep Mehta, learned counsel for the Commission appeared and placed the record of the Commission for perusal of the Court. On behalf of the respondent-State Shri Ramesh Purohit and Shri I. S. Pareek, both Additional Government Advocates appeared on notice and Shri R. R. Vyas appeared voluntarily for respondent No. 5.

( 5 ) I have heardthe learnedcounsel for the parties present and perused the record of the Commission.

( 6 ) A perusal of the record shows that the term of the reference of thecommission was to enquire into the totality of circumstances leading to the death of the Jain Muni Shri Lokendra Vijay at Bhinmal, District Jalore on 10-9-1997. It is also an admitted fact that Acharya Hemendra Surishwarj,. Shri Lekhendra Vijaji, Shri Labhesh Vijaji and Sadhwi Anant Guna Shriji were present in the Achalgach Upasara at Bhinmal during the night in which Jain Muni Lokendra Vijay is said to have consumed acid to end his life.

( 7 ) ON 14-5-1999, the Commission directedthat the intimation be also given to Acharya Hemendra Surishwarji,shri Lekhendra Vijaiji, Shri Labhesh Vijaiji and Sadhwi Anant Guna Shrijithat the Commission intended to examine them, if they themselves do not want to depose before the Commission. They were called upon to convey to the Commission the dates and place in Rajasthan convenient to them for their examination. It is also borne out from the record that on 28-7-2000, an application was moved on behalf of the Local Administration representing the State of Rajasthan impressing upon the Commission the importance of examining Acharya Hemendrasurishwarji, Shri Lekhendra Vijaiji and Jayant Sen Surishwarji and praying for taking steps for implementing the decision of the Commission to examine these witnesses.

( 8 ) IN response to the communication sent to these witnesses through their counsel, Acharyahemendra Surishwarji, Shri Lekhendra Vijaiji, Shri Labhesh Vijaiji and Sadhwi Anant Guna Shriji sent the written letters through their counsel expressing their desire to depose before the Commission but expressing their inability to reach Rajasthan before the year 2002. Their letters show that not only they are not opposed to depose before the Commission but also wanted to depose before the Commission but because of religious practice and because of religious bar on use of any conveyance that they cannot travel from Tamil Nadu to Rajasthan and be available to depose before the Commission before the year 2002.

( 9 ) THE Commission in its order dated 24-10-2000 has observed that the Commission intended to examine them if they themselves did not want to depose before the Commission. However, the commission has observed that in the prevailing circumstances, it was not possible for the Commission also to examine them as Commissions witnesses. The reasons given by the Commission are that the witnesses are far away in Tamil Nadu, they travel on foot and are prohib