PALOK BASU AND M. L. SINGHAL, JJ. Dhanraj Singh has filed this writ petition praying a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, i. e. , the State of U. P. and its officials to make payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs to the petitioner with interest thereon w. e. f. November, 1984. 2. Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. The Standing Counsel Shri A. N. Shukla has been heard in opposition. 3. It was strongly contended by Shri Singh that the petitioners son lost his life in an incident which took place soon after the assassination of the late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi in the night of 2/3rd November, 1984, for which a case was duly registered. A post-mortem was conducted. It is admitted that as far as the mandatory compensation for the death is concerned, the petitioner received Rs. 50, 000 from the State. The petitioner has alleged that this sum of Rs. 50, 000 has been released to him in three instalments i. e. Rs. 10, 000/- on 13-11-1984, another sum of Rs. 10, 000 on 1-7-1985, and the last instalment of Rs. 30, 000 on 30-4-1997. 4. In order to plead the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to compensation at least to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs, reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, reported in 1996 III AD. (Delhi) 333 in Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1996 Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration,, decided on 5-7-1996. 5. On the strength of the observations made in the said judgment it was vehement ly argued that Rs. 50, 000 compensation is too inadequate to really compensate the loss of human life and, therefore, Rs. 5 lacs should be commanded to be paid by the respondents. 6. It, however, sounds strange the mo ment attempt is made to equate the human life with currency notes. While, it is true that monetary compensation may in a given case be taken to be a timely solace to some ag grieved family in which an unfortunate inci dent and death may have taken place, but nonetheless quantum as to whether Rs. While, it is true that monetary compensation may in a given case be taken to be a timely solace to some ag grieved family in which an unfortunate inci dent and death may have taken place, but nonetheless quantum as to whether Rs. fifty thousand, one lac, two lacs or five lacs is sufficient payment for the death of such a man cannot be permitted to be decided by some pleadings of parties on the point of compensation. The absence of law is felt badly by the Court and it is desirable that such accidental deaths are covered by ade quate legislation or some social security scheme under which a citizens family mem bers may claim monetary compensation for loss of life in riots or terrorists activities just as it is payable in motor accident cases. 7. The very ruling on which learned counsel has relied upon, has awarded Rs. 2 lacs as compensation while the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently claimed Rs. 5 lacs as compensation for the present incident. Why this variation? The life in the decided decision was as valuable as in the present case. In the absence of a rational basis and/or a legal provision, the petitioner much be relegated to making of a representation before the authority con cerned who may after examining all attending facts and circumstances, consider the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law. No case, however, for issuing a writ in the na ture, as prayed by the petitioner, is made out. 8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, writ petition is finally dis posed of with the hope that if the petitioner is advised to move some representation, it may be disposed of expeditiously, preferab ly, within six months from the date of making the said representation. 9. A copy of this order may be fur nished to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week from today. Petition disposed of. .