- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is preferred by the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights against the order of the Bombay High court summarily dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition filed in the High court the appellant had asked for the following two reliefs: "(A) that the Hon'ble court be pleased to declare that the Commission of Enquiry appointed by the government of Mahaiashtra by its Notification No. FIR/5693/bombay-l/appointment/spl-2, dated 25/01/1993, is not a court of Law and there are no cases pending before the said Commission concerning the riots on and after 6/12/1992, and on and after 6/01/1993, and therefore, the question of sub judice does not arise in the way of the government to launch prosecutions against the culprits responsible for the said riots; (B) that this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents that they should carry out investigation as required under the law against the culprits responsible for the said riots which occurred on and after 6/12/1992 and on and after 6/01/1993, in the city of Bombay and its environs and to launch prosecution against those found prima facie responsible for the said riots. "
(3.) The appellant had filed the writ petition with the following averments. The appellant-organisation is formed for protecting the human rights of the citizens of this country. It believes in rule of law and in upholding it. There were widespread and violent riots in the city of Bombay and its environs on and after 6/12/1992 and again on and after 6/1/1993 in which a large number of people were killed and injured and properties worth crores of rupees destroyed. There were allegations that the law and order machinery has either failed or was colluding with the perpetrators of violence and destruction. Though about 3,000. 00 criminal cases were registered in connection with the said riots, no effective investigation has been carried out in those cases, no one has been arrested and no prosecution has been launched. The reason given by the respondents for this inaction is that a Commission of Enquiry appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Justice Srikrishna Commission) is enquiring into various aspects of the said riots and that they are awaiting the Commission's report. This is a totally unacceptable and impermissible reason. Amnesty International has also submitted a report to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Maharashtra staling that the appointment of the Commission is not an impediment to the government proceeding against the guilty according to law. In spite of the said report, the respondents are not taking any action in the matter. The appellants submitted that the aforesaid Commission is neither a criminal court nor can it punish the guilty persons and that the respondents have been merely making an excuse of the saidcommission for not taking any steps against the guilty. It is on the above allegations that the aforementioned two reliefs were asked for.;