RAM MOHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner claims damage and loss suffered by her due to the negligence of the Officer of the State. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a permanent resident of Mysore, has a daughter residing at Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who delivered a baby after a surgery, required the petitioner to go over to Saudi Arabia and assist her daughter. In this regard, it is claimed that she purchased a ticket from an agent to travel by air from Bangalore to Bombay enroute to daman for which she had paid a sum of Rs. 30,300/ -. The journey was scheduled on 10. 6. 2002 at 00. 10 hours by flight No. A1-443. K of Air India. It is said that the 3rd respondent, carrier issued a boarding pass No. 80 at 23. 20 hours on 9. 6. 2002 and she checked in on the said date at 23. 20 hours. Thereafter, reported at the counter for immigration check, but the said authority, without assigning any reason, did not clear her for boarding the flight and made a demand of Rs. 5,000/and in addition, took away the boarding pass, restrained her from flying on the said date. ( 2 ) IT is the claim of the petitioner that due to the aforesaid illegal action on the part of the Officer of the State, caused loss of Rs. 30,300/-- and mental agony, torture and tension not being able to assist her daughter who was in dire need of her help/assistance and in addition, the expense of rs. 3,000/- met by her son-in-law for having travelled to Daman in Saudi Arabia to receive the petitioner. It is the further claim of the petitioner that she spent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- though typed as Rs. 20,000/- in the petition, for travelling by car from Mysore to Bangalore airport. Petitioner states that she being a senior citizen, holding a valid passport and visa that was issued on 5. 6. 2002 valid for a period of one month till 4. 7. 2002, armed with a ticket and a boarding pass, there was no reason for the Immigration Authorities to restrain her form leaving India to reach Daman the port of entry in Saudi Arabia. 6. 2002 valid for a period of one month till 4. 7. 2002, armed with a ticket and a boarding pass, there was no reason for the Immigration Authorities to restrain her form leaving India to reach Daman the port of entry in Saudi Arabia. It is said that due to the illegal act of the immigration Authorities at the Airport in off loading the petitioner from the scheduled flight, her son lodged a complaint against the authorities at the Airport Police station on 10. 06. 2002. In support of her statement that a boarding pass was issued by the Airline, she has produced a letter dated 10. 6. 2002 issued by the Manager of the AIR India, Bangalore as at Annexure E and the copy of the complaint at Annexure F. In the premise of the aforesaid pleadings the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: " (a) A writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondent to pay the damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss and mental agony suffered by the petitioner. (b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take appropriate legal action against the officials of the second respondent who was on duty on 10. 6. 2002 at 0. 10 hours. (d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider Annexure-F. The representation dated 10. 6. 2002 and to pass appropriate order within a specified period in the interest of justice and equity. ( 3 ) THE petition is opposed by the 2nd respondent State by filing statement of objections dated 25. 8. 2004 interalia contending thus: "on verifying diary dated 9. 6. 2002 and 10. 6. 2002 it is ascertained that on 10. 6,2002 at 00. 10 hours, the Police Inspector immigration has made an entry stating that a passenger by name Smt. Mehaboob Bi holder of passport No. E. 1708547 had come to the immigration counter very late, as such she was off loaded, etc. " ( 4 ) IN addition, it is averred that Airline staff of Air India was required to close down the counter 30 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the flight. It is however, admitted that the petitioner had come to the immigration counter at around 23. 55 hrs. " ( 4 ) IN addition, it is averred that Airline staff of Air India was required to close down the counter 30 minutes before the scheduled time of departure of the flight. It is however, admitted that the petitioner had come to the immigration counter at around 23. 55 hrs. ( 5 ) THE statement of objections of 1st respondent, as noted in the docket sheet was returned with office objections. Respondent No. 3 Airline has not filed its statement of objections. ( 6 ) SRI Karumbaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the action of the immigration Authorities is illegal and due to the negligence of the officer concerned, the petitioner has suffered loss and put to undue hardship/inconvenience to which she is entitled to be compensated. In addition learned Counsel would contend that the officer concerned being an employee of the State, it is the vicarious liability of the State to make good the damage. Learned counsel would point out to the contentions set out in the statement of objections to contend that there was no justification for the respondent authority to restrain the petitioner from boarding the aircraft and that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages. ( 7 ) SRI M. G. S. Kamal, learned Counsel for the Airport authority, the 1st respondent, would contend that the functions of the authority is to build make available space and to maintain the airport buildings all over the territory of India. In this regard, it is contended that the authority, provides space for the Airlines as well as Immigration Authorities for their business and that the airport authority had nothing to do with the negligence, if any of the Immigration Authorities. ( 8 ) SRI D. O. Kotresh, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, Airline, would contend that since no relief is sought against the Airline, it is only a formal party. However, he would hasten to add that if an application is made by the petitioner, for refund of the amount on the Airline ticket, the same would be refunded. ( 9 ) SRI Nagarajulu Naidu, HCGP, would seek to sustain the action of the Immigration Authorities on three counts. However, he would hasten to add that if an application is made by the petitioner, for refund of the amount on the Airline ticket, the same would be refunded. ( 9 ) SRI Nagarajulu Naidu, HCGP, would seek to sustain the action of the Immigration Authorities on three counts. Firstly that the passengers embarking on an international flight are required to check in for clearance half an hour before the departure of the flight and the petitioner having come at 22. 55 hrs. When the flight was scheduled to depart at 00. 10 hrs, was beyond the period of 30 minutes, and secondly, learned Counsel would contend that the petitioner did not possess a boarding pass when she checked in at the Immigration Authority's counter and thirdly, that the petitioner had arrived at the immigration counter after the closure of the general diary. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned AGA would rely on the documents at Annexures R1 to R5 appended to the statement of objections. ( 10 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for determination in this Writ petition is, whether the petitioner has established a case of negligence of the Immigration Authority, entitling her to damages in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- ? If not, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to? ( 11 ) FACTS that are not in dispute are set out below: that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen, a resident of Mysore possessing a valid passport and visa which was valid for the period from 5. 6. 2002 to 4. 7. 2002 to travel to Saudi Arabia, held a ticket issued by the 3rd respondent Airline scheduled to depart on 10. 06. 2002 at 00. 10 hrs, and that the petitioner reported at the immigration counter at 23. 50 hours. What is disputed is the fact that she had spent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards taxi hire between Mysore and Bangalore and that the petitioner was proceeding to Daman to assist her daughter who had delivered a baby child after having undergone a surgery, as also that the petitioner did not hold a boarding pass. In addition, the alleged damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- having not been quantified is also disputed. 2,000/- towards taxi hire between Mysore and Bangalore and that the petitioner was proceeding to Daman to assist her daughter who had delivered a baby child after having undergone a surgery, as also that the petitioner did not hold a boarding pass. In addition, the alleged damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- having not been quantified is also disputed. ( 12 ) IT is not in dispute that the procedure for an international traveller for gaining access to board the aircraft is to enter the international departure lounge, have the baggages checked by the c.. S. F personnel who would permit the passenger to have access to the international departure lounge where counters of various airlines are located who would issue the boarding pass on the passengers checking in. Thereafter the passenger would have to report at the immigration counter to secure a clearance from the Immigration Authorities. At the immigration counter the staff verify the particulars of the identity of the passenger, compare with the information regarding the lookouts/circulars and loss of passport circulars issued by the competent authorities, verify the genuineness of the passport, visa, ECNR endorsement and if found in order, would permit immigration clearance by affixing the immigration stamp on the passport as also on the reverse of the boarding pass and on the embarkation card. This procedure is spelt out by the 2nd respondent in para 2 of its statement of objections dated 25. 8. 2004. ( 13 ) ALTHOUGH, the 2nd respondent states that a guideline is issued by the Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, that the Air line staff should close their counters half an hour before the scheduled departure time of the flight, no such guideline is produced or form part of the pleadings. The learned HCGP would draw my attention to the instructions noted in Annexure r3 and one such instruction reads as under. "airlines not closing their counters half an hour before the scheduled departure time of the flight should be issued notice. " according to the learned Counsel this instruction would tantamount to a direction not only to the airline staff, but also to each passenger boarding an international flight to report at the immigration counter well within half an hour of departure of flight. " according to the learned Counsel this instruction would tantamount to a direction not only to the airline staff, but also to each passenger boarding an international flight to report at the immigration counter well within half an hour of departure of flight. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that each of the passenger boarding an international flight is informed, in advance, about having to check in at the immigration counter half an hour before the scheduled time of departure of the flight. The instruction in Annexure R3. as noticed supra, is only to issue a notice to the airline which does not close down its counter half an hour before the scheduled time. The contention of the learned HCGP is, but a specious plea. What is not found in the instruction cannot be asserted by a contention. The plain language in which the instruction is couched would only mean that a notice is to be issued to the airline for not closing the counter and not that a passenger who reports at an immigration counter within the half hour of the scheduled time of the departure of the flight should be turned out. There is neither instruction nor a mandate that the passenger should not be cleared by the immigration staff if he/she reports at such counter at any time within half hour, before the scheduled departure of the aircraft. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner claims to have been issued with a boarding pass bearing No. 80 at 23. 20 hrs. which the 3rd respondent airline admits, and it is only thereafter that the petitioner is said to have reported at the immigration counter at 23. 50 hrs. ie. , the petitioner had reported at the immigration counter 20 minutes before the scheduled departure time of the flight. e. 00. 10 hours. There was no impediment for the 2nd respondent authority to clear the petitioner through immigration, unless, travel documents were not found in order. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did not possess valid travel documents. The only contention is that there was a delay in reporting at the immigration counter. e. 00. 10 hours. There was no impediment for the 2nd respondent authority to clear the petitioner through immigration, unless, travel documents were not found in order. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did not possess valid travel documents. The only contention is that there was a delay in reporting at the immigration counter. ( 15 ) THE material facts not being in dispute, the onus of establishing that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in rejecting immigration clearance to the petitioner at 20. 50 hrs. on 9. 6. 2002 is on the 2nd respondent. The justification for rejection is that the petitioner had come late. As to what is late is not spelt out or supported by records. The mere statement that the airline was asked to close its counters half an hour before the scheduled departure time of the flight cannot tantamount to a mandate to all passengers flying international that they would not be cleared from immigration, if they did not report at the immigration counter half an hour before the scheduled departure time of the flight. The reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent are neither well founded nor have a valid, legal basis. ( 16 ) ALL that the immigration officer was required to do was to verify the particulars of the identity of the passengers, compare information regarding the lookout circular and loss of passport circular issued by the competent authorities and note the genuineness of the passport, visa and ECNR, etc. This being the only duty entrusted to the Immigration Officer and in the present case the petitioner having not been alleged to have possessed defective travel documents, there was no reason for the 2nd respondent Immigration Officer to have refused immigration clearance to the petitioner. The reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent is one without any justification and the action deserves to be condemned. The action violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner. ( 17 ) THE claim of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did not possess a valid boarding pass when she reported at the immigration counter, for clearance, is not well founded. Even according to the 2nd respondent the petitioner could not have had access to the immigration counter without a boarding pass. ( 17 ) THE claim of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did not possess a valid boarding pass when she reported at the immigration counter, for clearance, is not well founded. Even according to the 2nd respondent the petitioner could not have had access to the immigration counter without a boarding pass. If the petitioner could not have had access, then how is it she reported at the immigration counter? The 2nd respondent does not appear to have made a truthful statement. This opinion of mine is supported by the document Annexure R2 said to be the general diary. At sl. No. 221 it is recorded thus: "off loaded before she arrived after GD signature at 23. 55". The remark does not state anything to support the contention of the learned HCGP that the petitioner did not possess a valid boarding pass at the time when she approached the immigration counter. In addition, Annexure R1 said to be an entry made in a record maintained by the 2nd respondent at its immigration counter, also, does not disclose about the fact that the petitioner did not possess a boarding pass at the time of immigration check. Moreover, the name of the petitioner is found at Sl. No. 36 in the record of the preflight, of Air India dated. 10. 6. 2002 produced by the 2nd respondent, annexed to the statement of objections, which discloses that the petitioner was due to board the night ( 18 ) THE third contention of the learned HCGP that the petitioner arrived at the counter after closure of the General Diary, is without any merit. A copy of the General Diary produced and noticed above does not disclose that before making the entry at Sl. No. 221, the immigration officer, in charge, had closed the diary. The document on the face of it does not disclose any writing to support the contention that the same was closed at 23. 40 hours. ( 19 ) IT, stands established that the petitioner was not cleared through immigration by the 2nd respondent authority on 9. 6. 2002 though she reported at the counter in the airport at 23. 50 hrs. The action of the 2nt respondent is a clear case of negligence in discharge of official duty. 40 hours. ( 19 ) IT, stands established that the petitioner was not cleared through immigration by the 2nd respondent authority on 9. 6. 2002 though she reported at the counter in the airport at 23. 50 hrs. The action of the 2nt respondent is a clear case of negligence in discharge of official duty. It is well settled law that public policy requires the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 is entitled to award compensation where fundamental rights are violated by an instrumentality or servant of the State, resulting in damage or loss occasioned or suffered by such negligence of the officer of the State. The officer acting negligently is liable personally and the State vicariously, more particularly when the violation trenches into and encroaches upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. The award of compensation is in the domain of public law fixing liability for a public wrong on the State itself, for its failure in carrying out its public duty of protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. It is not the case of the State that such a principle would not apply on the ground that the powers conferred on the officers concerned was in exercise of statutory power or sovereign powers, in order to claim immunity. In the modern social thinking of progressive societies, the needs of the state, duties of its officers, and rights of citizens are required to be reconciled so that the rule of law in a welfare state is not shaken. In a welfare state, functions of the state are not mere defence of the country, administration of justice, or policing but have been extended to regulating activities of the citizens, in almost every sphere of activity. In this modern era, no rational basis survives for demarcating between what is sovereign and non-sovereign powers. ( 20 ) THE petitioner claims that she was travelling enroute to Daman to help/assist her daughter who had delivered a baby by surgical intervention and required her assistance. No material is placed before this Court to accept such a fact except that she was passenger traveling to Daman. In addition, there is also no material for this Court to hold that the petitioner had in fact suffered damages to a tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. No material is placed before this Court to accept such a fact except that she was passenger traveling to Daman. In addition, there is also no material for this Court to hold that the petitioner had in fact suffered damages to a tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. In the absence of substantial legal evidence to establish damages, it would not be proper for this Court to accept the case of the petitioner, as much, of having sustained loss and suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- At the same time, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to any damage at all, since it is beyond cavil of doubt that the action of the 2nd respondent is one bereft of justification and is a straight case of negligence. At this juncture the submission of learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the airline would refund the amount paid on the ticket would effectively reduce the loss suffered by the petitioner. ( 21 ) KEEPING in mind the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that, it would be just, reasonable and equitable, to quantifying damages in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the negligence of the 2nd respondent. ( 22 ) THERE is considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, being an airport authority enjoined with the duty of construction and maintenance of airports in the country has nothing to do with the immigration clearance by the Immigration Authorities. The petitioner in the Writ Petition has not spelt out or substantiated her claim for the award of damages as against the 1st respondent except to say that the authority is concerned in the matter of passengers travelling by air craft. There is no material to establish that there was negligence on the part of the 1st respondent which had caused loss or damages to the petitioner. As a result, the claim as against the 1st respondent does not survive. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed in part and a mandamus shall ensue to the 2nd respondent to pay damages in a sum of Rs. As a result, the claim as against the 1st respondent does not survive. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed in part and a mandamus shall ensue to the 2nd respondent to pay damages in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner for loss and mental agony suffered by her and a further direction to the 2nd respondent to initiate such legal action as it is necessary against the concerned official who was on duty on 10. 6. 2002 at 00. 10 hrs. at the immigration counter in Bangalore airport for his negligent act. The damages awarded shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The 3rd respondent, airline is directed to make payment of the entire amount on the ticket, purchased by the petitioner, within a fortnight of receipt of the representation for payment.