ORDER : 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed against the judgment and order dated 12.06.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 19948 of 2015. 2. The background of fact is that the appellants-original petitioners who are four in numbers have come out with an assertion in the petition that in October, 1984 due to sad demise of Hon’ble Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, at her place in New Delhi as a part of reaction by the public, across the country the Sikh community people were targeted and the public at large had reflected their anger to the Sikh community. On account of this, large number of properties were been set on fire and there were incidents of mass killing. It is further the case of the petitioner that even after making several representations, payment of compensation to approximately 60 Sikh families have not been made to those whose properties and business establishment were badly affected on account of such untoward episode. By assailing that India is a democratic country and their nationals are having fundamental rights and it was the duty on the part of the Central Government as well as State Government to give proper protection and in case failure on their part to perform such function, the State Government as well as Central Government are supposed to pay compensation to the victims and the family. Even after more than a passage of 30 years, the affected persons have not been adequately compensated. As a result of this, the petition is brought before the Court in the year 2015 for seeking the following reliefs: “10 (a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to admit this petition. (b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by directing the respondents to consider the case and cause of 60 Sikhs 1984 riot affected families of Gujarat by making necessary investigation and inquiry and they should be paid appropriate compensation in accordance with law and damages occurred to the properties of victim families. (c) This Honourable Court may be pleased to pass an interim order directing the respondents to investigate and made inquiry about 1984 riots 60 Sikh affected families casualties, damages to the properties and place the report before the Honourable High Court. (c) This Honourable Court may be pleased to pass an interim order directing the respondents to investigate and made inquiry about 1984 riots 60 Sikh affected families casualties, damages to the properties and place the report before the Honourable High Court. (d) This Honourable Court may be please to pass such other and further relief, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require.” 3. This petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge in the year 2019 in which, after granting adequate opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Single Judge found that no case was made out which may call for any interference. Accordingly, the petition came to be dismissed and it is this order of dismissal of the petition, dated 12.06.2019, is made the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Shri D.C. Gurjar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants – original petitioners has vehemently contended that even after a passage of almost 30 years, some 60 Sikh community people have not been adequately compensated by the Gujarat Government, nor proper investigation or inquiry is undertaken. As a result of this, left with no other alternative, the present appellants-original petitioners are constrained to approach this Court. Shri Gurjar, learned counsel has further submitted that it was bounden duty on the part of the said authorities to see that the damage which has been done to the affected people is to be compensated adequately and without benefit or rehabilitation package, these 60 affected families are yet send from pillar to post and that being the situation, the appellants-original petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction. According to Shri Gurjar, the learned Single Judge by passing a brief order has disposed of the petition on hyper technicality. As a result of this, the error committed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. 4.1. According to Shri Gurjar, the learned Single Judge by passing a brief order has disposed of the petition on hyper technicality. As a result of this, the error committed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. 4.1. Shri Gurjar, learned counsel has further submitted that on the petition record, there was adequate material provided in the form of fire report prepared by the Fire Department as well as necessary panchnamas which have been undertaken and also certain relevant material have been placed for consideration, but unfortunately, the learned Single Judge adopted a hyper technical view of delay and has not entertained the grievance voiced out by the appellants and that being the position, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be corrected. 4.2. Shri. Gurjar, learned counsel has further submitted that may be that the incident in question is of around 1984 and would not adversely affect the legitimate right of seeking appropriate relief from the Court, since continuous representations have been made by the appellants-original petitioners in this regard and as such, delay which has occasioned on the part of the authority, cannot be attributed to the appellants, just to deny the benefit. The learned Single Judge have not appreciated the same and the order in question deserves to be corrected. No other submissions have been made. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having gone through the record of the present appeal, we are first of the view that the learned Single Judge has not adopted a hyper technical approach. On the contrary, the material facts have not been brought before the Court to justify the reliefs which have been sought. It has been further found from the record that the Collector, then has submitted a report in detail, which clearly indicated that the representations of the petitioners with regard to loss suffered during riots was also examined at length and that it does not indicate any loss having been suffered by the appellants. When the said report is taken note of by the learned Single Judge, we are unable to dislodge such finding which has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge, especially when no other available material is placed before us. When the said report is taken note of by the learned Single Judge, we are unable to dislodge such finding which has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge, especially when no other available material is placed before us. We have noticed further that there is a long lapse of time almost about 30 years by now and there are no factual details provided to justify their claim and in such a situation, when the questions of fact were highly disputed and require a thread bare examination. Which Court cannot undertake such exercise, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in our considered opinion. The reasons which are assigned by the learned Single Judge are sufficient enough to dismiss the petition. We are in concurrence with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The observations and the findings which have been arrived at by the learned Single Judge, we deem it proper to reproduce hereinafter: “5. Learned advocate for the respondents has also drawn attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in the Public Interest Litigation wherein details have been given with regard to the action taken by the Government. It is specifically mentioned that nothing is reported factually as to whether the petitioner has suffered any loss. Even the representation made to the Collector which was examined by calling for the report does not indicate any loss suffered by the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and have perused the documents on record. From the pleadings, it appears that merely on affidavit it is stated that the petitioners have suffered losses, without any evidence to substantiate the same. The Report of the Collector also indicates that the representation of the petitioners with regard to loss suffered during the riots was also examined on the basis of the report submitted and that too does not indicate any loss having been suffered by the petitioners. The Court has also taken into consideration the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 141 of 2012, where also the claim of the petitioners there in were not taken into consideration.” 5.1. The Court has also taken into consideration the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 141 of 2012, where also the claim of the petitioners there in were not taken into consideration.” 5.1. Additionally, we have also noticed from the record that with regard to this episode, some Public Interest Litigation has also been initiated in the past in the year 2012, and the same also came to be disposed of in the year 2015. Of course, the Public Interest Litigation was not entertained, but certain observations are very relevant which are contained in para 1 at page 40 of the appeal compilation. It has been specifically noticed that no riot victims or their family members have claimed any compensation for about last 30 years and as such, the petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation was not entertained and here also, we see that the genuine claimants even if have not appeared before us and because of some 60 Sikh families have been tried to be espoused by few non suited persons and thereto, without any substance or any supportive material, since that being the position, we cannot allow the learned counsel to travel beyond the pleadings and on the basis of the material which is made available on the record, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appellants have miserably failed in making out a case and that being the position, the appeal lacks merit. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.