JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. 1. Heard Ms. H. Bisheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. H. Raghumani, learned G.A appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The prayer in the writ application is to quash the order dated 16.07.2004 and proceedings of the meeting of District Level Screening-cum-Co-Coordination Committee in Annexure-A/9 and Annexure-A/10 and also for a direction to the respondents to extent the benefits of the scheme for ex-gratia payment to the petitioners. 3. It is stated in the writ application that on 11.04.2003 at about 10:00 p.m. some armed personnel who were members of NSCN(IM) numbering about 6/7 with sophisticated weapons came to Khongbal village and abducted four persons namely, (i) Mr. L. Shangringpam, (ii) Mr. Z. Ngachonmi, (iii) Mr. K.R. Soreingam (son of petitioner No. 2) and (iv) Mr. L. Yaomi (husband of petitioner No. 1). The above said members of NSCN (IM) assaulted the four persons and beat them blue and black and thereafter, killed Mr. KR. Soreingam and Mr. L. Yaomi in the jungle and their dead bodies were found in the next morning at Situl lok jungle road near Khongbai village. Killing of the above said two persons was reported to Saikul Police station and a case was registered. Since the family members of both the deceased were dependent on the deceased persons they submitted a representation dated 25.08.2002 for extension of ex-gratia relief. The said representation being not considered, the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 1608 of 2003 and the said writ petition was disposed on 15.12.2003 directing the respondents to consider the representation within a specific period. In compliance of the said order passed by the Court an order passed on 16.07.2004 stating that both the deceased persons were members of NSCN(IM) and therefore, prayer for grant of ex-gratia is not covered under Government order dated 06.08.1998. Accordingly, the representation for payment of ex-gratia was rejected. Challenging the said order as well as prayer for payment of ex-gratia this writ application has been filed. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein, it is stated that both the deceased persons were active members of the banned organisation till their death and accordingly, they are not covered for payment of ex-gratia by the Government order dated 06.08.1998. 5. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein, it is stated that both the deceased persons were active members of the banned organisation till their death and accordingly, they are not covered for payment of ex-gratia by the Government order dated 06.08.1998. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at one point of time both the deceased persons were members of the above banned group but had left the said group and were staying in their home and earning their livelihood by way of cultivation. Long after they had left the above banned group the incident took place and they were killed by the members of said banned group. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners both the deceased persons were not the members of the said banned group at the time of their death and were earning their livelihood by cultivation and accordingly, they are entitled to ex-gratia under the Government order dated 06.08.1998. 6. Learned State counsel relied upon the report of the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) Manipur dated 13.07.2004 in Annexure-C-1 to the counter affidavit and submitted that a verification was carried out on the character and antecedents of both the deceased persons and it was found that they were members of the said banned organisation but there is no report about their involvement in any particular extremist related case. Relying on the said letter, it was contended by the State counsel that since both the deceased persons were members of the above said banned organisation, they are not covered under the Government order dated 06.08.1998. 7. Government order dated 06.08.1998 is annexed to the writ petition at Annexure-A/7. The said order has been passed partially modifying Government orders dated 15.07.1996 and 02.05.1997 respectively. In the said order, Government took a decision to fix the ex-gratia payment to civilian in the event to death due to unjustified Police/Security Force action or Extremist action to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only. As per the Government order, if a civilian is killed due to extremist action his case for payment of ex-gratia can be considered. Undisputedly, at a point of time both the deceased were members of the extremist group namely, NSCN (IM). 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only. As per the Government order, if a civilian is killed due to extremist action his case for payment of ex-gratia can be considered. Undisputedly, at a point of time both the deceased were members of the extremist group namely, NSCN (IM). There is no dispute about the incident that took place on 11.04.2003 in which both the two deceased persons were assaulted by the members of the NSCN (IM) and were killed in the jungle. The only question for consideration is as to whether both the deceased persons continued to be members of NSCN (IM) till their death or had left the group. From Anexure-A/8, the report of the Superintendent of Police, Senapati District to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati District, it appears that in the course of investigation the Investigating Officer examined some of the villagers and it was found that both the deceased persons had joined NSCN (IM) organization and they gave up the banned organisation and were staying in their home and earning livelihood as cultivators. It is also stated in the report that there is no criminal case against both the deceased persons. Nonetheless, submission of the learned counsel for the State based on the report of the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) in Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit runs contrary to Annexure-A/8. Therefore, learned counsel for the State respondents was directed to produce verification report on the basis of which Inspector General of Police (Intelligent) had written the letter dated 13.07.2004 at Annexure-C/1. Today, learned counsel for the State respondents has produced a copy of the letter written by the Inspector General of Police (Intelligent) wherein it is stated that the said letter dated 13.07.2004 was brief and did not cover the letter dated 07.07.2004 (Annexure-A/8) submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Senapati District. Therefore, it is evident that there was no further verification except the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Senapati to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati in Annexure-A/8. Since it is specifically stated in Annexure-A/8 that both the deceased persons gave up the banned organisation and had settled in their home and were earning livelihood as cultivators, they can be considered as civilian at the time of the incident in which they were killed. Therefore, they shall be covered by the Government order dated 06.08.1998. Since it is specifically stated in Annexure-A/8 that both the deceased persons gave up the banned organisation and had settled in their home and were earning livelihood as cultivators, they can be considered as civilian at the time of the incident in which they were killed. Therefore, they shall be covered by the Government order dated 06.08.1998. I accordingly, disposed of the writ application directing the State respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of ex-gratia in terms of the Government order dated 06.08.1998 issued by the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur at Annexure-A/7 and pass necessary orders within 3(three) months from the date of communication of this order.