SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought compensation for his confinement in Jail alleging that he was arrested and confined in Jail illegally and maliciously by the respondents causing mental and physical pain and affecting his reputation in the society. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was a partner in the Firm M/s. Monlka bakeries. Industrial Area, Partapur, Meerut. One Sri Abdul Hameed was also partner. In the year 1979, they agreed to dissolve the partnership and a dissolution deed dated 26. 3. 1979 was executed whereby the assets and liability of the Firm were given to Sri Abdul Hameed. All the tax liabilities prior to dissolution were also cleared. ( 3 ) THE recovery proceedings were taken against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 2,400 as arrears of Sales Tax for the year 1983-84 and a notice was issued in his name. The said recovery proceedings were, however, withdrawn after the Sales Tax Officer Sector-V, Meerut found that the Firm has been dissolved as per dissolution deed on record and, therefore, the petitioner was not liable for payment of the said Sales Tax, he passed an order on 26th September, 1988 stating that the petitioner is not liable to pay any Sales Tax as the Firm has been dissolved by a dissolution deed. ( 4 ) ON 9. 2. 1996 while he had come to Meerut, where his son was living, at about 7. 00 A. M. three persons, namely, Kurk Amin Sri Beer Narain (respondent No. 10), his peon Sri Abbas Mehandi (respondent No. 11) along with an armed constable, raided his Meerut residence claiming Sales tax of Rs. 1. 55. 000 purporting the amount of Sales Tax recovery for the years 1980-81. 1981-82 and 1982-83 of the Firm Monlka Bakeries. He informed the Kurk Amin that he is not liable for any tax dues standing in the name of Monika Bakeries inasmuch as he has severed all his links with the said Firm vide dissolution deed. The Kurk Amin, however, demanded illegal gratification for himself and his peon as also for Naib Tahsildar, respondent No. 9, who was sitting in the Jeep outside. The petitioner refused to oblige them. The Kurk Amin, however, demanded illegal gratification for himself and his peon as also for Naib Tahsildar, respondent No. 9, who was sitting in the Jeep outside. The petitioner refused to oblige them. The Kurfc Amin and the peon mercilessly dragged him from his bed and broke down his reading spectacles and when he tried to contact some officer on phone, the apparatus was snatched and broken. The petitioner was dragged in a humiliating condition on the the street without even allowing him to change the clothes. He was a heart patient and wanted to take medicine but he was not permitted to take medicine. He was forcibly hurled on the floor of the jeep and was taken to the District Jail. Meerut. He was lodged in barrack No. 10 in the jail along with hardened criminals. He complained pains. The jail authorities asked Dr. Tyagi to examine the petitioner. Dr. Tyagi, on examining the petitioner, was satisfied that the petitioner was heart patient who had gone bye-pass surgery and gave him medicines. ( 5 ) THE younger son of the petitioner submitted an application with the Trade Tax Officer, Sector v. Meerut stating that the petitioner was not liable to pay any sales tax against the Firm M/s. Monika Bakeries as the Firm had been dissolved in the year 1979 and prior to that, all the llablllities have been cleared and after the said period, the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount. Sri Ram Asrc Prasad, Trade Tax Officer, Sector V, Meerut, in the evening, issued a letter dated 19. 2. 1996 to the Deputy Collector (Collection ). Trade Tax, Meerut that as the Firm had been dissolved on 26. 3. 1979 the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax and the recovery of such tax should not be made against him. The Deputy Collector (Collection ). Trade Tax, on receiving the information, asked the jail authorities to release the petitioner from the Jail. The petitioner was thereafter was released in the late evening. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner that he was illegally taken into custody and unlawfully detained in jail maliciously and in any case negligently with the result that he suffered mental torture, physical pain and his reputation was also affected in the society. The petitioner was thereafter was released in the late evening. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner that he was illegally taken into custody and unlawfully detained in jail maliciously and in any case negligently with the result that he suffered mental torture, physical pain and his reputation was also affected in the society. He is an active member of Rotary International and he and his wife both are holding permanent income-tax account. He is working as Regional Manager, Alaknanda Road Funds. Ltd. , and was getting Rs. 1,25,000 as remuneration per annum at that time. ( 7 ) THERE are two aspects of the matter. One the petitioner was illegally taken into custody on account of alleged sales-tax dues against him and secondly, the manner in which he was taken by the authorities concerned to jail and was confined there. ( 8 ) THE Trade Tax Officer. Sector V, Meerut is alleged to have issued recovery certificate against the Firm M/s. Monika Bakeries. Industrial Area, Partapur, Meerut showing the name of the petitioner as partner of the Firm. The deed of dissolution dated 26th March, 1979 was already on the record of the Sales Tax Office. In the year 1988, the proceedings were taken against the petitioner for recovery of sales-tax for the year 1983-84. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, meerut wrote a letter On 26. 9. 1988 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) to the Deputy Collector (Collection ). Sales Tax, Meerut intimating that as the partnership has been dissolved, the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales-tax for the Firm Monika Bakeries. The Trade Tax Officer without looking to the record again sent recovery certificate to the Deputy Collector (Collection, trade Tax Department. Meerut for recovery of dues pertaining to the years 1980-81. 1981-82, and 1983-84 on 10. 2. 1996 without examining its own record. It was not the case where the petitioner was required to submit any dissolution deed before any action could be taken against him for recovery of sales-tax dues against the Firm. ( 9 ) THE recovery of the sales-tax dues against the Firm was taken against the petitioner in the year 1988 and the then Sales Tax Officer had written a letter dated 26. 9. ( 9 ) THE recovery of the sales-tax dues against the Firm was taken against the petitioner in the year 1988 and the then Sales Tax Officer had written a letter dated 26. 9. 1988 that the petitioner was not liable to pay any sales-tax dues against the Firm as the Firm has been dissolved and he is no longer a partner of the said Firm. It was not the case that prior to the date of dissolution of the partnership Firm, the liability, as then was existing, was against the petitioner. ( 10 ) AN officer when he sends recovery certificate is bound to examine its own record before he sends it for execution. The forwarding of recovery certificate to the Collector involves various consequences. The person may be imprisoned for not making payment of the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate. The conduct of the Trade Tax Officer. Sector V, Meerut was highly negligent resulting in the confinement of the petitioner in jail without any justification. He had sent the recovery certificate on 10th February. 1996 and on letter being submitted by the son of the petitioner to him, after the petitioner was confined to jail, he sent a letter to the Deputy collector that the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales-tax against the Firm in view of the fact that the partnership had been dissolved in the year 1979 with no liability on the petitioner. This he could have examined before Issuing the recovery certificate on 10th February. 1996. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and it has not been stated that any additional material was placed before the Trade Tax Officer. The recovery certificate was sent by him negligently without considering that the person may be Imprisoned for his own negligence and fault. ( 11 ) ANOTHER aspect is the conduct of the Deputy Collector (Collection], Trade Tax. Meerut. The recovery of sales-tax Itself is to be made as arrears of land revenue in accordance with the provision of Section 279 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which provides that arrears of land revenue may be recovered by any one or more of the processes mentioned therein. Clause (a) provides for recovery by serving writ of demand or citation to appear on any defaulter. Clause (b) of Section 279 provides for recovery process by arrest and detention of the person. Clause (a) provides for recovery by serving writ of demand or citation to appear on any defaulter. Clause (b) of Section 279 provides for recovery process by arrest and detention of the person. In Ram Narayan Agarwal etc. v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1984 SC 1213 , the Apex court referring to sub-rule |2) of Rule 51 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules observed that the defaulter should not be detained in custody unless there is a reason to believe. the process of detention will compel the payment of whole or substantial portion of the arrears. The Court observed :- "under this sub-rule, there is necessity to enquire into the question whether detention of the defaulter would be productive of payment of the arrears of a substantial portion thereof. The officer concerned is therefore, required to decide on the basis of material before him and any evidence tendered or submissions made by the defaulter whether there is any justification for detaining him and it is only after he is satisfied that the detention of the defaulter will compel him to make payment of the whole or substantial part of the arrear he can order his detention. " the Supreme Court in this case held on facts that as no such enquiry was made, the detention in pursuance of any warrant of arrest was illegal and quashed the warrant of arrest. ( 12 ) IN the present case, Sri Vlshal Srivastava, who was then posted as Deputy Collector, Trade tax, Meerut, has filed counter-affidavit. He has stated that he was given a recovery certificate pertaining to assessment year 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 on 10. 2. 1996 which was sent by the Trade Tax Officer, Sector V, Meerut for recovering the amount of Rs. 89,325 outstanding in the sole name of Sri N. C. Jain, the petitioner. He on the same date, issued a citation fixing 17. 2. 1996 for appearance of the petitioner and for filing objection, if any. The petitioner was served with the citation by affixation on 16. 2. 1996. As the petitioner did not appear on 17. 2. 1996, he sent warrant of arrest and the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail on 19. 2. 1996. 2. 1996 for appearance of the petitioner and for filing objection, if any. The petitioner was served with the citation by affixation on 16. 2. 1996. As the petitioner did not appear on 17. 2. 1996, he sent warrant of arrest and the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail on 19. 2. 1996. The copy of the citation, annexed as Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit, contains a report of the Kurk Amin reporting that he had gone at the residence of the petitioner with the citation. He was informed that the petitioner mostly remains out and at his residence nobody accepted the citation. A copy of the citation was affixed at the door and the witnesses refused to put their signatures. This report was given on 16th February, 1996. The Deputy Collector (Collection) did not satisfy himself as to whether the petitioner was served with any notice. There was no material to indicate that the petitioner had deliberately avoided to accept the notice. The report did not indicate that the petitioner was inside his residence and refused to accept the citation. The report, on the other hand, was that he remains mostly out of station. ( 13 ) SECONDLY, the citation was alleged to have been affixed on 16th February. 1996. The date for appearance in the citation was on 17th February, 1996. The time for filing objection was hardly one day. The Deputy Collector did not satisfy Itself before issuing a warrant of arrest that the petitioner was duly served. Even assuming the petitioner was served on 16th February, 1996 by affixation, the time granted for filing objection was Insufficient. It was incumbent upon the deputy Collector (Collection) to make necessary enquiry before issuing an order of arrest against a person for recovery of the amount. Admittedly, he had earlier not Issued any other citation. He had earlier not taken any steps for realisation of the amount by attachment of property of the petitioner and without making any enquiry issued the order for arrest affecting the liberty of the petitioner. An officer, who is passing an order of arrest without following the procedure prescribed by law, is liable for his own action for torts and the Slate has vicarious liability to pay compensation for unlawful confinement. An officer, who is passing an order of arrest without following the procedure prescribed by law, is liable for his own action for torts and the Slate has vicarious liability to pay compensation for unlawful confinement. ( 14 ) UNLAWFUL confinement by violating the provisions of law or without following the procedure of law affects the liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Where the constitutional guarantees are infringed, the Court has developed a new jurisprudence which may be termed as constitutional Torts. This principle has been applied by the United states Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six unknown agents of the federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 (1971) United State 388, where the cause of action for damages against federal law enforcement officers who violated the constitutional guarantees was held could be inferred directly through constitutional provisions. In the case of the Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi. AIR 1990 sc 513 a nine year old child died having been beaten and assaulted by a Police Officer, the supreme Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction on the principle for protection of constitutional rights held that an action for damages lies for bodily harm which Includes battery, assault, false imprisonment, physical injury, and death. In Avtar Singh Bagga v. State of U. P. , AIR 1985 SC 117, where for illegal detention and threat to each of the persons illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs, the Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively. The matter in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union oj India, AIR 1992 SC 248 was a class action for a class of people and the Court awarded damages in the case where the cause of action arose on account of negligence. ( 15 ) IN Bhim Singh, MLA, v. State of J. and K. and others, AIR 1986 SC 494 , where a Member of legislative Assembly was arrested while en route to seat of Assembly and in consequence, the member was deprived of his constitutional rights to attend the Assembly Session, the Apex Court directed the Government to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000. 50,000. ( 16 ) IN Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Das (Mrs) and others, (2000) 2 SCC 465 , where a girl was raped by the employees of the Railway, the Supreme Court held that lt is violation of fundamental right by public functionaries which amounts to violation of fundamental right of a person and the Court can award compensation. The State is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the victim. ( 17 ) WE are not going into the controversy as to whether the allegation of the petitioner in regard to the manner in which he was arrested from his house by the Kurk Amin in the morning, thrown in the jeep and thereafter taken to the jail and confined to jail with inhuman treatment are correct. These matters can be examined when the Civil Suit is filed for tort. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that the recovery certificate was negligently Issued by the Trade Tax Officer and warrant of arrest issued by the Deputy Collector (Collection ). Trade Tax, the material placed before us leaves us with no doubt that both of them were negligent resulting in illegal confinement of the petitioner in jail. ( 18 ) THE petitioner was a man of social status having reputation and was confined to Jail for no fault of his own. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct respondent No. 1 to pay sum of Rs. 10. 000 as compensation to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is open to the Government to take appropriate proceedings against those officers and realise the amount of compensation from them also. ( 19 ) THE writ petition is allowed with the direction given above. .