JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. These three writ petitions, not only arise out of the same incident but also the reliefs claimed in all the writ petitions are same except the quantum of compensation. Therefore on consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties all the cases were taken up for hearing and are disposed of in this common judgment. 2. The brief facts leading to the incident are that on 29.8.1998 late Thenucho Chakesang, former Speaker of Nagaland Legislative Assembly who had security risk having 'Y' category security cover was coming from Nagaland to Imphal in a Maruti 1000 Car bearing NL-01/1005 with his Driver and two armed security guards. After staying for some time in the house of one of his friends in Imphal, he was proceeding towards Imphal Airport in the said Car along with his friend, a retired Major. When the incident took place, there were 5 occupants in the vehicle, i.e. Thenucho Chakesang, Ex Speaker of Nagaland Legislative Assembly, Retd. Major S. Shaiza, the driver Rukoshele of Phek District Nagaland and his two armed body guards belonging to Nagaland Police, namely Tusovehu Chakesang and Kikheto Sema. Both the body guards were armed with 1 AK 47 assault Rifle each and were sitting in the rear seat of the Car. When the Car reached Kwakeithel Akham Leikai on Tiddim Road, the Manipur Police Commandos of three sub-units "ECHOS' fired several rounds led by SI Krishnatombi from their respective fire arms. As a result of such firing, there were 39 bullet holes on the said Maruti Car and some bullets directly hit the occupants of the Car. In course of the incident Shri Thenucho Chakesang, Ex Speaker, Nagaland Legislative Assembly, received gun-shot injuries on his person and Retd. Major, S. Shaiza who was sitting on his left side of the front seat, also received 10 gun-shot injuries and succumbed to the injuries within few minutes on his way to J.N. Hospital, Poromplat Imphal. The other three occupants including the two body guards also received gun-shot injuries and died instantaneously in the car itself. In course of such incident one civilian namely Hidam Budha Singh who was working in his homestead land nearby was also hit by a bullet and died on his way to the hospital within few minutes after the incident. 3. Considering the importance of the incident, the State Govt. In course of such incident one civilian namely Hidam Budha Singh who was working in his homestead land nearby was also hit by a bullet and died on his way to the hospital within few minutes after the incident. 3. Considering the importance of the incident, the State Govt. of Manipur constituted a one man commission of enquiry under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 and Shri C. Upendra, District & Sessions Judge(Retd) Manipur was appointed as one man commission to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. 4. From the report of the enquiry Commission annexed as Annexure-A/13 to W.P(C) No. 1647 of 2000, it appears that 36 witnesses were examined in course of such enquiry and several documents were also produced. The Commission found that the former Speaker of Nagaland Legislative Assembly was a protected person and was entitled to security as provided to him by the Govt. of Nagaland. On analysis of evidence, the Commission ultimately came to the following conclusions: "133. Admittedly, there had been security problem in Manipur, more particularly in Imphal areas due to the presence of various underground activities. On the day of occurrence, only a little more than one hour back the police commandos of these three units, namely Echo-39, 45 and 46 came across two armed extremists and subsequently apprehended them with arms said to have been held by them from Sagolband Moirang Leirak, which is a not far away from Kwakeithel. In such a situation their minds were alert on that day. 134. To sum up, the appraisal of evidence on record and attending circumstances, as discussed in the foregoing paras show that while the said three Commando Units were on Tiddim Road near Kwakeithel Police Out post, some of commandos saw two muzzles of fire arms in a Maruti Car 1000 Ext M0 7, proceeding towards Imphal Airport. Then on seeing the muzzle of fire arms in the rear seat of the Maruti Car Ext. M0 7, the three commando units, a strong contingent of 14 (fourteen) persons armed with one sophisticated weapon each in three Maruti vehicles, including one bullet proof chased after the said Maruti Car from behind. After chasing the Car for about 1100 feet, one Maruti Gypsy of Echo -39 could overtake and forced the Maruti Car to stop. M0 7, the three commando units, a strong contingent of 14 (fourteen) persons armed with one sophisticated weapon each in three Maruti vehicles, including one bullet proof chased after the said Maruti Car from behind. After chasing the Car for about 1100 feet, one Maruti Gypsy of Echo -39 could overtake and forced the Maruti Car to stop. Then immediately police Commandos made indiscriminate firing on the Maruti Car and each occupant without any sufficient cause. It appears to me that seeing of the two fired arms in the Maruti Car was the only circumstance for making firing by the police commandos on the Maruti Car. Besides this, I do not see any reason or cause either good or bad for opening fire on the Maruti Car." 5. Mr. L. Shashibushion, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the report of the Enquiry Commission and the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Commission, as quoted above, all the petitioners are entitled to compensation apart from ex gratia paid to them by the State Govt. of Manipur. He also contended that in case of the Driver and the two Bodyguards, WP(C) No. 1647 of 2000 has been filed claiming compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs for each of the petitioners whereas in respect of the retired Major, S. Shaiza, compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs has been claimed. So far as the civilian is concerned, the compensation claimed is also Rs. 20 lakhs. Relying on the report of the enquiry the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for payment of the compensation claimed in the writ petition. 6. Shri H. Raghumani, learned counsel for the State submitted that the report of the Commission was not acted upon by the State Govt. and therefore no compensation can be allowed on the basis of such report and it was further submitted that all the petitioners having been paid ex gratia, the prayer for payment of compensation should not be allowed. Similar submission was also made by Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police(Law & Order), Govt. of Manipur as well as for the Dy. I.G. of Police (Range and Valley), Govt. of Manipur. Similar submission was also made by Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police(Law & Order), Govt. of Manipur as well as for the Dy. I.G. of Police (Range and Valley), Govt. of Manipur. Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the Sub-Inspector and other constables, who were members of the Commando group, submitted that considering the law and order situation existing then in the State of Manipur, they had acted in good faith and therefore no liability should be fixed on them. 7. WP(C) No. 1647 of 2000 has been filed by three petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother of late Rukoshele who was driving the vehicle on the day of incident. He was a bachelor at the time of his death. Petitioner No. 2 is the elder brother of one of the constables who had been posted as Body guard of the former Speaker and was a occupant of the vehicle. He was also a bachelor. Petitioner No. 3 is also the elder brother of the other constable who had been assigned duty as Body Guard of the former Speaker and was a occupant of the vehicle. He was also a bachelor. 8. WP(C) No. 1349 of 1999 has been filed by the wife of late Retd. Major S. Shaiza and WP(C) No. 705 of 2000 has been filed by the wife of the deceased civilian who died in course of the said incident. 9. From the report of the one man commission, it is found that the police officers who were involved in firing set up a case of encounter. It was stated that when the police personnel saw the Maruti 1000 Car coming, they signaled to stop the car at the sight of two muzzles of weapons like AK 47 through the side of the windscreen but without paying any heed to their signals, the Maruti car restlessly proceeded towards the Airport. Then the commandos made a brief chase and while chasing the occupants of the Maruti car, fired upon them as a result of which two Gypsy vehicles carrying the commandos were hit. In self defence, the commandos also fired at the Maruti car as a result of which four occupants of the said Car sustained gun-shot injuries resulting in their death. In self defence, the commandos also fired at the Maruti car as a result of which four occupants of the said Car sustained gun-shot injuries resulting in their death. Though such a story was put up before the Commission, it was not accepted and the Commission came to a specific finding that the 3 Commando Units were on Tiddim road near Kwakeithel Police out post and some commandos saw two muzzles of fire arms in the Maruti Car proceeding towards Imphal Airport. On seeing of the muzzles of the fire arms in the rear seat of the car, 3 Commando Units consisting of 14 persons armed with sophisticated weapons occupying 3 Maruti vehicles including one bullet proof chased from behind and after chasing the Car for about 1100 feet one Police vehicle could overtake the Maruti car and forced the car to stop. Immediately thereafter the Commando started indiscriminate firing at the Maruti Car and its occupants without any sufficient cause. In view of such finding by the Commission, there is no doubt in mind that without taking the required precaution and without verifying as to who were the occupants of the Maruti 1000 car, the Commandos indiscriminately fired at the vehicle resulting in death of four of the occupants. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 1349 of 1999 as well as WP(C) No. 1647 of 2000 are entitled to compensation even though they had been paid ex gratia of 1 lakh each by the State Govt. Similarly, the husband of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 705 of 2000 who is the wife of the civilian, who was working in the field received bullet injury in course of the incident and succumbed to such injuries, is also entitled to compensation. 10. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I find that the driver of the vehicle and two armed guards accompanying the former Speaker were bachelors and were young. At least two of them were Government servants working as constables. I am, therefore, of the view that considering their young age and fact that the two of them were Govt. servants, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the petitioners would be just and proper. So far as the WP(C) No. 1349 of 1999 is concerned, petitioner is the wife of Retd. Major, S. Shaiza, who died in the incident. servants, compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the petitioners would be just and proper. So far as the WP(C) No. 1349 of 1999 is concerned, petitioner is the wife of Retd. Major, S. Shaiza, who died in the incident. Considering his age and the fact that he retired from service as a Major, I am of the view that compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs would be just and proper. So far as the WP(C) No. 705/2000 is concerned, it appears that the civilian who died in the incident was married and was running a grocery shop earning Rs. 3000/- per month. Considering his age, his income at the time of death, I am of the view that compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs to the petitioner therein would be just and proper. Accordingly, I dispose of W.P(C) No. 1647 of 2000 directing the State Govt. of Manipur, Respondent No. 1, to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the petitioners within 6 months from the date of communication of this order. Similarly, WP(C) No. 1349/99 is also disposed of directing the respondent No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner therein within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of this order. So far as the WP(C) No. 705 of 2000 is concerned, the respondent No. 1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs to the petitioner therein within a period of 6 months from the date of communication of this order. So far the other prayers in the writ petitions are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not make any submission and accordingly those reliefs claimed in the writ petitions are not entertained.