Shabihul Hasnain and Vedpal, JJ. This application moved on behalf of the petitioner for further directions and recall of order dated 23.06.2011, is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Senior Advocate and learned Advocate General. 3. Yesterday, this case was taken up on the application moved by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal. A prayer was made that the post mortem of the deceased Dr. Y. S. Sachan be made by a panel of doctors. The application was disposed of on the basis of statement made by learned Advocate General at Bar that the family members of deceased Dr. Yogendra Singh Sachan were allowed to be present at the time of post-mortem. It was also stated that the viscera will be preserved. 4. Today an application has again been moved by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Senior Advocate stating therein that the family members have denied their presence at the time of post-mortem. It has been stated in this application that neither the brother nor his wife were present at the time of post-mortem. This prima facie raises very piquant situation. The Advocate General is the most respected member of the Bar and is the first among the lawyers of the State and statement made by him before the Court has to be respected and trusted. However, there is possibility that the information given to him by the Officers may or may not be correct. To remove any doubt from the minds of family members of the deceased and the public at large, the Court has allowed the application to be placed before this Court today. There is a demand in the application that a second post-mortem may be conducted by an independent panel of doctors, preferably, from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. 5. Learned Advocate General in his opening statement has very clearly and fairly informed that he does not have any objection to the demand of a second post-mortem in principle. However, he insists that the post-mortem which has been conducted is fair and legally sound. In the interest of justice and fair play in favour of the democracy in this country and transparency in the actions of the State, this Court could have ordered for a second autopsy of the deceased. However, he insists that the post-mortem which has been conducted is fair and legally sound. In the interest of justice and fair play in favour of the democracy in this country and transparency in the actions of the State, this Court could have ordered for a second autopsy of the deceased. It is clarified at this juncture that the demand for a second autopsy is being made by the petitioners of the P.I.L. and not by the family members of the deceased. 6. The application today has been moved in a pending public interest litigation which has been filed by the petitioners for an inquiry in the connected matter by the C.B.I. The regular Court dealing with this matter has already passed some orders in the writ petition. This Court sitting in vacation could have ordered only for a second post-mortem keeping in view the urgent nature of the matter. However, since there is no demand or prayer by the family members of the deceased, this Court feels that such a direction can not be given in absence of a request by the family members of the deceased. So far as the demand for conducting an inquiry by the C.B.I. is concerned, the regular Court is already seized of the matter. It will be proper that the matter may be heard by a regular Bench which is entrusted to look into such matters by Hon'ble Chief Justice. 7. Under the circumstances and in absence of any request for a second autopsy by the members of the family, the Court feels that no direction is required to be given by this Court. The prayer of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for handing over the post-mortem report to the family, is allowed. The opposite parties will hand over the copy of the post-mortem report to the family of the deceased. 8. This application is accordingly disposed of.