JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel and Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the Respondents. 2. This habeas corpus petition is filed by the Petitioner Shri Mohan Das against the Union of India and the State of Assam seeking production of his son Sri Baikuntha Das before the Court on the allegation that on 31.07.2001 at about 4 A.M. about l5 to 20 Army personnel came to his residence at village Bhalukmari and picked up his son Baikuntha Das. The Petitioner saw his son being taken to Jalah Police Post. He along with some other villagers went to Jalah Police Post, but were not allowed to meet his son. At about 2 P.M. he saw his son being lead away by the array. That was the last time he saw his son. On 03.08.2001 the Petitioner filed an FIR with the Officer-incharge Jalah P.P. stating that the army has detained his son. The Petitioner thereafter made repeated enquiries at the concerned police out post, but only assurance was given to him that they are making enquiries and his son will be traced soon. It is further alleged that after arrest of the detenue by the army authorities on 31.07.2001 till date the whereabouts of his son are not known to the members of his family. 3. This Court issued notice on the Respondents. An affidavit is filed by Lieutenant Dhirender Yadav, Eastern Command, c/o 99 APO denying the fact of picking up or arresting the son of the Petitioner. It is alleged, inter alia, that on specific information about presence of ULFA Action Group the army was deployed in Bhalukmari, the village of the Petitioner. But on learning that the ULFA militants have left for paschim Bakura, the army personnel left Bhalukmari and raided Paschim Bakura where there was an encounter between the army and the militants in which two militants were shot dead. It is denied that the Petitioner or anybody came to enquire about any detained person in Dumni Bazar Camp. 4. But on learning that the ULFA militants have left for paschim Bakura, the army personnel left Bhalukmari and raided Paschim Bakura where there was an encounter between the army and the militants in which two militants were shot dead. It is denied that the Petitioner or anybody came to enquire about any detained person in Dumni Bazar Camp. 4. When there facts are in controversy, this Court thought it appropriate to refer the matter to the District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta for holding an enquiry as to whether Sri Baikuntha Das was taken into custody by the Army on 31.07.2001 and, if so, his present where abouts. 5. The enquiry was taken up by the district and Sessions Judge, Barpeta and the Petitioner and the Union of India have examined the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner as P.W. 1 has stated that on 31.07.2001 at about 4 A.M. the army picked up his son Baikuntha Das and thereafter he informed the village Headman Shri Madan Chandra Das (P.W. 3) of the action of the army, who took him to the Jalah PP, but they were not allowed to enter the Jalah P.P. He, however, at 2 P.M. saw his son was being taken away by the Army. On 11.09.2001, he made representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to trace out his son, which was forwarded to the SDPO, Bajali, but nothing happened. He denied anti social association of his son. 6. P.W. 3 Shri Mohan Chandra Das (P.W. 3) deposed that he accompanied the Petitioner to the Jalah P.P. where he was told that Baikuntha was detained by army. He has supported the statement of the Petitioner (P.W. 1) that the army lead away the Petitioner's son at about 2 P.M. He further deposed that he approached the Lieutenant in the Dumuni Camp, who informed him that Baikuntha Das was sent to Laukhata and advised him to find out Baikuntha from the residence of his friends and relatives. 7. P.W. 4 Shri Chakradhar Das, a neighbourer of the Petitioner (P.W. 1), has stated that on 31.07.2001 he saw army personnel taking away the son of the Petitioner on foot by the village road at dawn. He further stated that he did not see police and the village headman with the army. 8. 7. P.W. 4 Shri Chakradhar Das, a neighbourer of the Petitioner (P.W. 1), has stated that on 31.07.2001 he saw army personnel taking away the son of the Petitioner on foot by the village road at dawn. He further stated that he did not see police and the village headman with the army. 8. P.W. 5, Sri Ranjit Das, who accompanied the P.W. 1 to Jalah P.P. Deposed that he saw the son of the P.W. 1 being taken away by the army from Jalah P.P. at about 2 P.M. 9. P.W. 2, Hiranjit Kakati, has stated that he has drafted the petition to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. The Opposite Party's witness No. 1 S.I. Karuna Kanta Das, who was in-charge of Jalah P.P. has denied that Baikuntha Das was ever brought to Jalah P.P. by the army. However, he admitted that the army had operated in Bhalukmari village and two militants were killed. He does not remember whether any civilian was brought. 10. The Enquiry Officer has found that the GD Entry Ext. 'Ka' shows interpolation right from Entry 176 to 185. Even the name of the Incharge Intaz All has been interpolated by way of erasing the earlier name in the G.D. Entry No. 185 without any authority. Almost all the signatures in the G.D. Entries are found interpolated. The G.D. Entry No. 433 dated 31.07.2001 showing army operation at village Paschim Bakua cannot be relied upon because of the interpolation made in the General Diary. The Enquiry Officer also found that the statements made by the witnesses for the Petitioner as true and is a clear pointer to the fact that Sri Baikuntha Das was picked up in the early hours of 31.07.2001 by the Army and then he was taken to Jalah P.P. at about 2 P.M. and then he was taken away by the army personnel to unknown destination. 11. The enquiry report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta is based on proper appreciation of the evidence placed before him. We do not have any hesitation in accepting the report and we accept the findings of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta that the Petitioner's son was picked up by the army personnel on 31.07.2001. 12. 11. The enquiry report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta is based on proper appreciation of the evidence placed before him. We do not have any hesitation in accepting the report and we accept the findings of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta that the Petitioner's son was picked up by the army personnel on 31.07.2001. 12. Although the matter has been taken up by the Court on 11.01.2002 and the Respondents took time on 31.01.2002 to file counter, but till the hearing the petition on 10.05.2004 the Respondents have failed to trace out Sri Baikuntha Das and produce him before the Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, submitted that the compensation should be paid to the Petitioner and the search must continue till the person is traced. 13. In the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1997) 1SCC 416, the Apex Court observed: The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortuous acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interest shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article226 of the Constitution of India for the established violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the Courts under the public law jurisdiction for penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the Courts too much, as the protector and custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the Courts too much, as the protector and custodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the Courts and law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A Court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim-Civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family. 14. In view of the law laid down as aforesaid, we hold that the Petitioner is entitled to condensation and considering the age of the missing person and his economic conditions etc. a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) would be the adequate compensation at present in this case, which would meet the substantial ends of justice. Accordingly, the Respondent Union of India is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to the Petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order. The amount shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court, whereupon the amount shall be given to the petitioner on proper identification by his Counsel. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner is at liberty to seek any other remedies claiming damages or compensation in Civil or any other competent Court and the award of compensation by this Court shall not come in way of giving him relief, if it is found by the appropriate Court, to which he is entitled, in accordance with law. Petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. Petition allowed