Judgment A.K.Prasad, J. 1. Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur a voluntary registered social organisation (for short petitioner Organisation) has brought this writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation to award compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand only) against the respondents to be paid to Sukumati Mai Kudada D/9 Sri Gonda of village Darkundia, Ps. Mujassil, Chaibasa, district Singhbhum (now West Singhbhum) a juvenile, then aged about 13 years, who remanded to Seraikella Jail by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Seraikella in Misc. Case No. 198 of 1991, a proceeding under Sec. 107. Cr. P.C. which was in violation of the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and she was released from the Jail after remaining in illegal custody for about a month and half. It is stated that she along with others were taken into custody due to the agitation against Khadih Kharakai Bandh Yojna. The matter came to the light when the secretary and other members of the petitioner-Organisation visited Seraikella Jail on 7-5-1991 and interviewed Sukumati Mai Kudada. 2. The Sub-divisional Magistrate. Seraikella is the respondent in the writ petition on whose behalf a counter affidavit has been filed sworn by Daud Burth an Executive Magistrate at Seraikella, who has admitted therein that on 11-4-1991 he acted as I/c. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Seraikella, and on that date he had remanded said Sukumati Mai Kudada a minor girl to jail and she was released on 14-5-1991 from the Jail custody. He has further stated that there was agitation of the villagers against Icha Kharakai Bandh Yojna and large number of agitators were on roads and there was apprehension of breach of peace and in Misc. Case No. 198 of 1991, 63 persons men and women were arrested by the Officer-in-Charge, Rajnagar Police Station and at about 10 P.M. he was ordered by the sub-divisional Magistrate to act as In-charge Sub-divisional Magistrate and to remand the arrested persons to jail custody arid at about 2 a.m. on 124-1991 the arrested persons were brought in a bus and produced before him for remand by the Police Officer. He has given explanation in the counter affidavit that there was power failure and darkness inside and outside the room and in candlelight he had to do the work and in meagre light he could not see the features and faces of the arrested persons, who were remanded by him and their age had not been mentioned in the police report and in the circumstances it could not be known to him whether the minor girl, aged between 12-14 years was in the lot remanded by him. He has further stated in the counter affidavit that after 11-4-1991 the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate held Court and on 25-4-1991 the girl, namely. Sukumati Mai Kudada was not physically produced before him, though her custody warrant had been placed, and ultimately on 14-5-1991 she was released from jail custody. His further stand in the counter affidavit is that the writ petition at the behest of the Petitioner-Organisation is not maintainable and Sukumati Mai Kudada or her family members have made no grievance of violation of fundamental right and by mistake she had been remanded in the proceeding without any malafide intention on the part of the respondent and he undertakes not to commit such mistake in future. 3. Mr. B.P. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner Organisation. Mr. A.B. Mahto. J.C. to learned Government Pleader No. II, appearing on behalf of the respondents have already been heard. 4. It is admitted position that Sukumati Mai Kudada a minor girl, aged about 13 years was remanded by Daud Burth (who was I/ c Sub-divisional Magistrate at the relevant time) an Executive Magistrate Seriakella, to jail custody on 11-4-199J in a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. P.C. It is not disputed that the said girl was released on 14-5-1991. The Act came into force with effect from 2nd of October; 1986, Sec. 2(h) of the Act defines a juvenile and a girl who has not attained the age-Of 18 years falls within this definition. Sec. 23 of the Act reads as under: "23. Proceeding under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure not competent against juvenile. Not with standing anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974), no proceeding shall be instituted and no order shall be passed against a juvenile under Chapter VIP of the said Code." A proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Cr. Not with standing anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (2 of 1974), no proceeding shall be instituted and no order shall be passed against a juvenile under Chapter VIP of the said Code." A proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Cr. P.C. is covered by Chapter VIII of the Cr. P.C. Thus Section 23 of that Act mandates that no proceeding shall be instituted and no order shall be passed against a juvenile in a proceeding under Sec. 107. Cr. PC. It is axiomatic that remand of the minor girl to jail custody in a proceeding under Sec. 107. Cr. P.C is in violation of the prohibition imposed by the Act and as such it was illegal and still more unfortunate is that she had to remain in illegal detention in consequence of it for a month or so. Thus her liberty has been infringed, and there has been violation of her fundamental right. The explanation of the acting Sub-divisional Magistrate concerned that for want of adequate light, he could not mark the features and face of the girl nor could assess her age is not tenable to condone the wrong done to the girl, whose fundamental rights has been infringed. The girl is entitled to compensation under the Public law in addition to the remedy available under the private law for the damages for tortuous action of the government Servant. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Apex court in the Serious of decisions and one may cite the decision reported in D.K. Basu V/s. State of W.B. and Bhim Singh V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir. 5 The State Government is liable for the infringement of fundamental rights of a citizen by its officer. The writ petition for awarding compensation to the said girl for infringement of her fundamental right cannot be thrown out on the technical ground that it has been brought by an organization like the petitioner herein. It is significant to note once again that it is a public interest litigation. It has been brought by the petitioner Organization to vindicate the wrong done to the girl and the awarding compensation. 6. In the facts and circumstances stated above, and for the ends of justice, I think it proper to awards a compensation of Rs. It is significant to note once again that it is a public interest litigation. It has been brought by the petitioner Organization to vindicate the wrong done to the girl and the awarding compensation. 6. In the facts and circumstances stated above, and for the ends of justice, I think it proper to awards a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand) only to be paid by the State of Bihar for infringement of fundamental rights of the said girls (Sukumati Mai Kudada) by the illegal act of said Executive Magistrate Seraikella. The State of Bihar is directed to make available the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand) to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, within a month of this order and when the amount is made so available, the Deputy Commissioner, west Singhbhum shall locate the girl, named above and pay the amount to her within a fortnight. Let a copy of this judgment/order be handed over to the learned Government Pleader No. II forthwith for communication to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, for compliance of the aforesaid direction. No costs. R.A.Sharma, J. 7 I agree.