Judgment :- 1.00 Is it a crime to disobey the illegal orders of the police by the law abiding citizen? 1.01 Blind obedience to any illegal order will lead to chaos. Hence the need of the hour is to educate the people to acquire the moral courage and the mental will power to disobey the illegal orders and challenge the same through legal process. 1.02 Dispensation of justice is the ultimate object of the law. Law abiding citizen is the strength of the law. Justice is normally administered through law courts as per our constitution following the substantial and procedural laws of the land. The administration of justice is a divine duty and it plays pivotal role in any parliamentary democracy. 1.03 Honble former Chief Justice of India, Shri. R.C. LAHOTI delivering the key note address on “Envisoning Justice in the 21st Century”, at Joint Conference of the Chief Justices of the High Court and Chief Ministers of the States held at Vignana Bhavan on September 18, 2004 (— Printed in 2005 1 L.W. 33 J.S.) is pleased to observe that- “the hopes of teeming millions are focussed on us for protecting their life, liberty, property and all the rights which the constitution of India and the laws of the land grant and guarantee by the rule of law which has three facets i.e., rule by law, rule under law and rule according to law. The seekers of justice, approach the Courts of justice, with pain and, anguish in their minds as they have faced legal problems and they have suffered physically or psychologically and they did not take law into their own hands as they believe that they would get justice from the Courts at the end on some day and hence we owe an obligation to them to deliver justice.”- 1.04 Addressing the same conference, the Honble Prime Minister of India, Shri. Manmohan Singh said that “there is a growing dissatisfaction regarding the functioning of the executive and the legislature and their ability to deliver effective governance to meet the needs and challenges of our times. In this back ground, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the public at large continues to hold our judiciary in high esteem. In this back ground, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the public at large continues to hold our judiciary in high esteem. The judiciary is the custodians and the watch dogs of the fundamental rights of our people and has discharges its responsibility very well indeed.” 1.05 The faith and confidence of the people are the sources of inspiration to the Indian judiciary to safeguard their rights. 2.00 The right of a citizen and the duty of a police officer is involved in this unfortunate episode, came up before me by way of Writ. 2.01 CAN A POLICE OFFICER INTERFERE OR ISSUE ANY ORDER IN A “CIVIL DISPUTE”? 2.02 A simple question but with serious consequences. 2.03 The spontaneous and emphatic answer would be in the negative. The law of the land is certain on this point. Yet the police here and there are over-acting with over zealous beyond their jurisdictional arena for variety of reasons. 2.04 In our criminal justice system, the job of the enforcing agency is to prevent the crimes and detect the offences. Its main object is maintenance of law and order. The police being a preventive and detective wing of the State is expected to discharge its duties within their limits and limitations and as long as they are dedicated to this disciplined duty, the citizens of the society will always appredate, encourage, assist and salute the police for all their legal actions. No civilized society can survive without an organised police. 3.00 The petitioner in this Writ is challenging the legality and correctness of the notice of the first respondent, a banker, and the order of the second respondent, a police officer. 3.01 The first respondent is the Secretary of Alanthur PAC Bank, Thiruppalai Branch. 3.02 The second respondent is the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing - II, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai. 3.03 The impugned notice has been issued by the first respondent on 24.8.2004 not permitting the petitioner to operate her bank account. The impugned notice is in pursuance of the impugned order of the second respondent freezing the bank account of the petitioner until investigation is completed. 3.04 Admittedly, neither a criminal case is registered nor investigation is commenced and pending in any manner against the petitioner. 4.00 The factual back ground needs to be noted. 4.01 The petitioner is a resident of I.B. Colony, Narayanapuram, Madurai -14. 3.04 Admittedly, neither a criminal case is registered nor investigation is commenced and pending in any manner against the petitioner. 4.00 The factual back ground needs to be noted. 4.01 The petitioner is a resident of I.B. Colony, Narayanapuram, Madurai -14. She is having a savings bank account bearing No. 579 with the first respondent. It is an admitted fact. The first respondent informed her through the impugned notice that she cannot operate her bank dealings. When she approached the first respondent, she was informed that as per the letter of the second respondent dated 4.6.2004, they have issued the impugned notice. Then, the petitioner approached the second respondent but nothing happened. Thereafter, the petitioner has given a written representation by means of notice through her counsel on 6.9.2004 requesting them to permit her to operate her bank account. The first respondent acknowledged the same on 8.9.2004. The second respondent acknowledged the same on 9.9.2004. There is no response. Hence the petitioner approached this court with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate direction to quash the actions of the respondents. 4.02 The first respondent received the Court notice on 14.3.2005 and engaged an advocate Mr. T. Ravichandran to appear before this Court. 4.03 The second respondent received notice on 3.3.2005. Learned Additional Government Pleader appeared for 2nd respondent. 4.04 The third respondent has been impleaded after filing of the Writ and Mr. R. Suryanarayanan appeared for the third respondent. The third respondent alone filed counter wherein he has raised a family dispute between himself and the petitioner who are no other than brother and sister. The contention of the third respondent is that the amount in the bank account of the petitioner is joint family account and hence he approached the second respondent and gave a complaint before him and in pursuance of the same, the impugned order of the second respondent was issued. His another complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai has been directed to C.C.B., Madurai u/s. 156 Cr.P.C. and a compromise was arrived between the petitioner and the third respondent on 11.2.2005 during the police enquiry. It is also stated that a civil suit for injunction in O.S. No. 506 of 2005 was filed and pending before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai against the petitioner and ad-interim injunction was obtained in I.A. Nos. It is also stated that a civil suit for injunction in O.S. No. 506 of 2005 was filed and pending before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai against the petitioner and ad-interim injunction was obtained in I.A. Nos. 442 and 443 of 2005. 4.05 It is needless to say that merits and demerits, truth or otherwise of the contentions of both parties in their civil dispute need not be gone in detail now as they are unnecessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition. 4.06 The admitted facts are the petitioner is a customer of the banker/the first respondent and she is having savings bank account bearing No. 579. There are civil disputes between the petitioner and the third respondent. While so, the third respondent made a complaint to the second respondent, the second respondent sent the impugned letter dated 4.6.2004 to the first respondent. The first respondent issued the impugned notice dated 24.8.2004. The petitioner sent representation to the respondents 1 and 2. The second respondent has refused to receive the same sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgement. The postman made an endorsement that the second respondent has refused to receive the letter. Postal receipts and refused postal cover are filed by the petitioner. 4.07 The first respondent has filed the original letter of the second respondent addressed to them on 4.6.2004. The third respondent filed a xerox copy of the compromise between the petitioner and himself. The petitioner has not admitted the compromise. 4.08 The second respondent did not file any document. Therefore, in order to verify whether the impugned letter of the second respondent dated 4.6.2004 has been issued from the office of the second respondent, this Court has directed the Registry of this Court to seize file in C. No. 179/179/DSP/EOW/2MDU/2004 from the office of either the respondent or the D.S.P. Economic Offences Wing and produce the file before this court for verifying the contents. 4.09 Court Officer by name Thiru S. Purushothaman went to the office of the second respondent and requested them to handover the file. After verification, the Court Officer has informed by police that the file is missing. A report has been submitted by the Court Officer. The Report of the Court Officer discloses that he reached the office of the second respondent on 20.6.2006 and the Inspector of Police Mr. After verification, the Court Officer has informed by police that the file is missing. A report has been submitted by the Court Officer. The Report of the Court Officer discloses that he reached the office of the second respondent on 20.6.2006 and the Inspector of Police Mr. Pon Ram directed his Subordinates to search for the records relating to the file and the above file was missing. Then, Mr. Pon Ram called Mr. Bose, the D.S.P., who told that he was at the office of the Government Pleaders Office relating to some other case and he turned up at the office at about 6.00p.m. and received the Court notice and after verification, they confirmed that one Mr. Mohan Thambi Rajan, the Then Inspector of Police had issued the impugned letter dated 4.6.2004 addressed to the first respondent on the basis of a complaint given by Mr. Kumar, who is none other than the third respondent herein. Thereafter, the D.5.P., Mr. Bose called Mr. Mohan Thambi Rajan, the then Inspector of Police, who is presently attached the Nerukuppai Police Station, Sivagangai Police Station as he happened to be in the District Court, Madurai for some other case. He came to the DSP office by 6.30 p.m. And Mr. Mohan Thambi Rajan had verified for the relevant register and found that records are missing. Thus, the final result is that neither the Inspector of Police, Mr. Mohan Thambi Rajan who is instrumental for issuing the impugned letter dated 4.6.2004 to the first respondent nor the present Inspector of Police Mr. Pon Ram nor the D.S.P. Mr. Bose could trace the file and hand it over to the Court Officer. 5.00 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the third respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner ventilated all grievances of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is a direction from the Inspector of Police/the second respondent herein and hence there is no other way except to obey the same. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that since there is a civil dispute between himself and the petitioner, he has approached the police and obtained order and thereafter, he also has filed a civil suit and it is pending and Adinterim injunction has also been granted. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that since there is a civil dispute between himself and the petitioner, he has approached the police and obtained order and thereafter, he also has filed a civil suit and it is pending and Adinterim injunction has also been granted. 6.00 The points for determination are- (i) whether the second respondent can interfere in civil dispute? (ii) Whether the first respondent can blindly oblige and issue the impugned notice? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief? 7.00 Point -1 7.01 Perused the impugned notice issued by the first respondent and the impugned letter issued by the second respondent. IMPUGNED NOTICE OF 1st RESPONDENT From The Special Officer/President/Secretary, (A.2943-Alanthoor Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank), Telephone NO. 683719. To P. Mala, W/o. Ravichandran, 1/111, R.R. Nagar, E.B. Colony, Narayanapuram, Madurai - 625 014. Dt. 24.8.2004 You are hereby informed as per the letter of Thiru. M. Kumar dated 24.4.2004 as well as the Letter of Inspector of Police dated 4.6.2004 Economic Offences Wing II, Madurai District, the operation of your (Tmt. Mala) S.BAccount No. 579 which has the balance amount of Rs. 4,46,584/- (Rupees Four Lakhs forty six thousand and five hundred and eighty four only) is stopped on and from 22.4.2004. Sd/- Secretary, A.2943-Alanthoor Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank IMPUGNED LETTER OF 2nd RESPONDENT From Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing - II, Madurai District, Madurai. To The Secretary, Alanthur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Thiruppalai Branch, Iyer Bungalow, Madurai. Sir, Sub: Freezing of the Accounts – Report – Sent – Regarding. Ref:C. No. 179/DSP/EOW-II/MDU/2004. One Kumar of Naganakulam, Madurai lodged a complaint against her sister Mala on 19.5.2004 that she has not given his brohters share since the dispute arised among them after the death of their father Tr. K. Manisamy who is the Fixed Depositor and Account Holder of your bank. It is learnt that the Deposits have been transferred to a Savings Bank A/c No. 579 in the name of Mala who is the sister of the complainant. I request benign Sir to furnish the details of all transactions held from the beginning and the same may be freezed until the investigation is completed. Sd/- Inspector of Police Economic Offences Wing-II, Madurai. I request benign Sir to furnish the details of all transactions held from the beginning and the same may be freezed until the investigation is completed. Sd/- Inspector of Police Economic Offences Wing-II, Madurai. 7.02 Plain reading of the above disclose that in pursuance of the directions of the second respondent to the first respondent to freeze the bank transactions of the petitioner the first respondent has ssued the impugned notice. 7.03 The contents of the impugned letter of the second respondent dated 4.6.2004 clearly discloses that there is civil dispute between the parties with regard to partition of property after the death of their father and the bank deposits have been transferred to the savings bank account of the petitioner. 7.04 It is a civil dispute. But, by ignoring this fact, the second respondent has issued a direction to the first respondent to freeze the operation of all bank transactions of the petitioner. This direction is issued as if investigation is pending and investigation is to be completed. 7.05 Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the Information to the police and their powers to investigate. The police officer has power and duty to investigate a cognizable offence. No police offer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate. 7.06 For investigating either cognizable case or a non-cognizable case, the police officer shall have to enter the substance of the information in a book in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. It is popularly known as First Information Report. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. deals with information to the police in cognizable cases. Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. deals with information to the police in non-cognizable cases. 7.07 There is no provision under the code to conduct any investigation in civil disputes. Police have no power to initiate any investigation in civil case. Inquiry is different and any inquiry u/s.145 Cr.P.C. is not an investigation. 7.08 If a report is received by any police officer disclosing a cognizable offence, then he has duty to register a case under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and commence investigation. If report is received in a non-cognizable case, he has to obtain permission of the Magistrate for registration of the case as well as for investigation. 7.9 In the instant case, neither a cognizable nor non-cognizable case is alleged against the petitioner. If report is received in a non-cognizable case, he has to obtain permission of the Magistrate for registration of the case as well as for investigation. 7.9 In the instant case, neither a cognizable nor non-cognizable case is alleged against the petitioner. On the other, a civil dispute has been informed to the police officer, the second respondent herein. I do not know the reasons behind over acting by the 2nd respondent by addressing the impugned letter dated 4.6.2004. It is nothing but abuse of power violating the law of land. The crime number in which investigation is pending is not noted in the letter as there is no investigation. Till today the second respondent is unable to inform whether any case is registered against the petitioner and investigation is pending. 7.10 In the State of Tamil Nadu police laws are in force. The Tamil Nadu District Police Act 1859 and Rules issued thereunder are well recognized through out the country. Apart from that we have the Police Act 1861 dealing with powers, duties and responsibilities of the police personnel in the country. The Madras City Police Act now known as Chennai City Police Act 1998 is one of the best Police Act in India. All these Acts and rules have come into force in order to regulate the police affairs in the erstwhile, Madras Presidency now the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act 1859 is as follows: “21. Duties of Police officers - Every Police-officer shall, for all purposes in this Act contained, be considered to be always on duty and shall have the powers of a Police-officer in every part of the General Police District. Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act 1859 is as follows: “21. Duties of Police officers - Every Police-officer shall, for all purposes in this Act contained, be considered to be always on duty and shall have the powers of a Police-officer in every part of the General Police District. It shall be his duty to use his best endeavours and ability to prevent all crimes, offences and public nuisances; to preserve the peace; to apprehend disorderly and suspicious characters; to detect and bring offenders to justice; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; and promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him.” 7.11 The second respondent being the State Police Officer his duty to use his best endeavour and ability to prevent all crimes, offences and public nuisances to preserve peace; to apprehend disorderly and suspicious character, to detect and bring offenders to justice; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; and promptly obey execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him. 7.12 In Convalsood v. Naval Kishore ( AIR 1983 SC 159 ) It has been clearly observed that a suit for eviction should have been filed in a civil Court and the dispute is essentially a civil matter, which could be properly adjudicated upon by a competent civil Court but instead of that criminal proceedings are initiated. Thus, the Honble Supreme Court observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the abuse of process of Court and misuse of power. Similarly, in R.S.P. Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1985 SC 472 ) the Honble Supreme Court observed that when the litigation is of civil nature for a property, initiation of criminal proceedings should not be permitted and such litigation is not in the interest of the parties, nor public time should be allowed to be wasted over the meaningless litigation. 7.13 The present case of the petitioner reveals the sad story of a helpless married woman driven to the Family Court by husband and thereafter, all sorts of civil disputes at the instance of brother and in the mean while, she is driven to this court by misusing the power by 2nd respondent. 7.14 The rule of law is not one way traffic. 7.14 The rule of law is not one way traffic. In Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar ( AIR 1980 SC 785 ) the Supreme Court of India observed that in our country intimidation by policemen is not an uncommon phenomenon and the judicial process will carry credibility with the community only if it views impartially and with common sense. 7.15 I do not want to demoralise the Police Department as it would badly impair on the efficiency of the force. But, we cannot ignore the misdeeds of few thereby bringing bad name to all. Hence the Director General of Police and the Chief Secretary of the State must issue suitable instruction to the State Police not to interfere in any civil disputes. 7.16 I have no hesitation to conclude that the second respondent has unnecessarily interfered in a civil dispute and the second respondent has no authority to interfere in a civil dispute. Accordingly, this point is answered holding that the action of the second respondent in interfering with the civil dispute is uncalled for and is objectionable and the Director General of Police and the Chief Secretary of the State of Tamil Nadu have to take necessary acting in this matter. 7.17 Before parting with this point, I would like to add that whenever any illegal order is passed either by the police or by any executive, the victim or the affected must approach the immediate superior. In fact, if the person victimised by such actions approach the highest authority i.e. the Chief Secretary of the State, who is the Chief Executive of the entire State administration or the concerned Head of the Department at the State level, then they will get relief. Therefore, it is necessary to educate people that whenever any illegal order is passed by any authority while discharging the executive functioning, the public should approach either the Chief Secretary or the concerned Head of the Department so that the defects can be rectified. 7.18 Apart from approaching them by addressing a detailed letter, the victim may also approach the Legal Services Authority either at the State level or at the District level or at the Taluk level by placing all the facts and I am sure that the Legal Services Authority whose objective is to provide equal, early and effective justice to the needy particularly to the poor, women, children etc. Hence the victim will get redressal of the grievance. 8.00 Point No. 2 8.01 It is contended that the first respondent has no other option except to oblige the direction of the second respondent. I do not agree with this contention. The first respondent is a banker and the petitioner is its customer. The banker has to discharge its duties as per banking laws and rules. The banker must examine that under what circumstances, the second respondent has issued the impugned order. Without doing it, they have blindly obliged the second respondent and also the third respondent. They have caused mental agony and financial loss to the petitioner. They ought not to have done the same. They should have obtained the legal opinion from their standing counsels. Without doing so, the first respondent obliged the respondents and thereby has also committed illegality and irregularity in issuing the impugned notice. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 9.00 Point No. 3 9.01 The petitioner is entitled for more than one relief. 9.02 As the first relief to the petitioner, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent is set aside. If there is any direction from a civil Court or any other Court, the first respondent is to freeze the accounts. The first respondent has to respect the Courts order and not at the instance of the second respondent or third respondent as they have no authority to issue such direction in civil dispute. 9.02 Before this Court, it is stated that the Civil Court has already issued an injunction order restraining the petitioner from operating the bank account. If it is true, the same has to be maintained because the Civil Courts order are binding on all the parties. It is for the parties to go and agitate before the civil Court and get relief. 9.03 The second relief to the petitioner is awarding compensation. 9.04 Compensation to victim is a recognised principle of law being enforced through the ordinary civil Courts. Under the law of torts the victims can claim compensation for the injury to the person or property suffered by them. The field reality is that it is taking years for the victims to get a decree for damages or compensation through civil Courts and thereafter few more years in execution proceedings, which is resulting in so much hardship to them. The field reality is that it is taking years for the victims to get a decree for damages or compensation through civil Courts and thereafter few more years in execution proceedings, which is resulting in so much hardship to them. The emergence of compensatory jurisprudence in the light of human rights philosophy is a positive signal indicating that the judiciary has undertaken the task of protecting the rights of all the people irrespective of the absence of any express constitutional provision and of judicial precedents. A question regarding the awarding of monetary compensation through writ jurisdiction was first raised before the Supreme Court in Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar ( (1981) 1 SCC 627 ) In this case, Bhagwati, J. observed: “Why should the court not be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious fundamental right” The seed of compensation for the infraction of the rights, implicit in Article 21, was initiated in Khatri, followed by Sant Bir and Veena Sethi cases, which sprouted with such a vigorous growth that it finally enabled the Court to hold that the State or its official is liable to pay compensation. This dynamic move of the Supreme Court resulted in the emergence of compensatory jurisprudence for the violation of right of a citizen. The concern of the highest court to do justice rather than mechanically applying the law based on precedents is reinforcing the credibility of the judiciary among the public, especially the helpless have-nots. Though there is no express provision for awarding compensation under the Constitution of India, it is interesting to mention about the development of the law regarding compensatory jurisprudence with reference to the experience in India and some other countries. The enlightening observations of the Chief Justice in State (at the prosecution of Quinn) v. Ryan ((1965) IR 70 (122)) deserve special notice. The learned Chief Justice said: It was not the intention of the Constitution in guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the citizen that these rights should be set at naught or circumvented. The intention was that rights of substance were being assured to the individual and that the Courts were the custodians of those rights. The learned Chief Justice said: It was not the intention of the Constitution in guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the citizen that these rights should be set at naught or circumvented. The intention was that rights of substance were being assured to the individual and that the Courts were the custodians of those rights. As a necessary corollary, it follows that no one can with impunity set these rights at naught or circumvent them, and that the courts powers in this regard are as ample as the defence of the Constitution requires. In Byrne v. Ireland, Walsh, J ((1972) IR 241 at p. 264) opined: In several parts of the Constitution, duties to make certain provisions for the benefit of the citizens are imposed on the State in terms which bestow rights upon the citizens and, unless some contrary provision appears in the Constitution, the Constitution must be deemed to have created a remedy for the enforcement of these rights. It follows that, where the right is one guaranteed by the State, it is against the State that the remedy must be sought if there has been a failure to discharge the constitutional obligation imposed. Another valuable authority comes from India, where the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to enforce rights guaranteed under it. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa ( (1993) 2 SCC 746 ), the Supreme Court awarded damages against the State to the mother of a young man beaten to death in police custody. The Court held that its powers of enforcement imposed a duty to “forge new tools”, of which compensation was an appropriate one where that was the only mode of redress available. This was not a remedy in tort, but one in public law based on strict liability for the contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply. 9.06 The courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. The purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system, which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. The purpose of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system, which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. 9.07 The constitution makers knew that in a country like India where there is so much of poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, deprivation and exploitation any insistence on a rigid formula of proceeding for enforcement of a fundamental right, would become self-defeating and it would place enforcement of fundamental rights beyond the reach of common man. The entire remedy for enforcement fo fundamental rights which the Constitution-makers regarded as to precious and invaluable, and elevated to the status of fundamental rights, would become a mere rope of sand so far as the large masses of the people of this country are concerned. 9.08 This remedy in public law has to be made readily available when invoked by the have-nots, who are not possessed of the wherewithal for enforcement of their rights in private law, even though its exercise is to be tempered by judicial restraint to avoid circumvention of private law remedies, where more appropriate. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa ((1993) 2 SCC 422), the Supreme Court observed: “It may be mentioned straight away that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this Court or by the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort.” There are several cases in which the Supreme Court and the High Courts made the State or its officers liable to pay compensation as a public law remedy ignoring the plea of the State about its immunity from liability. In the hands of the Supreme Court public interest litigation in India has taken multidimensional character. The age-old adversarial system has been given a go-by. In the hands of the Supreme Court public interest litigation in India has taken multidimensional character. The age-old adversarial system has been given a go-by. In State of Maharashtra v. Narhar Rao (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1783 (V 53 C 360)) it has been held that- “The test to determine as to whether a particular act complained of was done under colour of the office or in excess of the duty is to see that reasonable connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office exists. The act cannot be said to have been done Under colour of office merely because the point of time at which it is done coincides with the point of time the accused officer is invested with the powers of duty of his office. In State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram and others (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1786 (V 53 C 361)) it has been held that- “In order to seek protection conferred by S. 161(1), Bombay Police Act, there must be a reasonable connection or nexus between the alleged act of assault and confinement and the duty or authority imposed upon the officer under the Bombay Police Act or any other enactment conferring powers on the police under the colour of which the act may be said to have been done. Unless there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it cannot be said that the act was done under the colour of the office.” In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ((2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 399) In the latest landmark judgment, the Honourable the Chief Justice of India, Y.K. Sabharwal is pleased to observe as follows: “2. This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and/or abettors of the violations are those, who have been entrusted by law with a duty to protect these rights? The task becomes difficult and also requires urgent intervention by Court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may not lose faith in it, finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation. 61. The task becomes difficult and also requires urgent intervention by Court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may not lose faith in it, finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation. 61. Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the High Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and the implementations of the orders are utterly lacking. If the laws are not enforced and the orders of the Courts to enforce and implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identify and take appropriate action against officers responsible for this state of affairs. It is, therefore, not only the question of stopping the misuser but also making the owners at default accountable for the injuries caused to others. Similar would also be the accountability of errant officers as well since, prima facie, such large-scale misuser, in violation of laws, cannot take place without the active connivance of the officers. It would be for the officers to show what effective steps were taken to stop the misuser.” 68. Rule of law is the essence of democracy. It has to be preserved. Laws have to be enforced.” Usually the Supreme Court or High Courts do not take up the issues relating to disputed facts in writ proceedings. They consider only the question of law. When a matter with disputed fact is placed before the Court for consideration the Court refuses to take up such issue and directs the petitioner to approach a civil court for resolving the disputed question of fact. But in cases of victimisation through public law remedy under the Court instead of making the petitioner to resort to private law remedy invented the process of fact finding commissions to inquire into the disputed facts and submit reports before the Court to consider the correctness of the facts placed before the Court. The compensatory jurisprudence introduced by the Supreme Court of India by invoking powers under Article 32 gained tremendous importance in recent times due to the increase of the incidents of State lawlessness by its officer. 10.00 With this backdrop, this Court is awarding compensation to the petitioner to be paid by the second respondent, the then Inspector of Police, Mr. The compensatory jurisprudence introduced by the Supreme Court of India by invoking powers under Article 32 gained tremendous importance in recent times due to the increase of the incidents of State lawlessness by its officer. 10.00 With this backdrop, this Court is awarding compensation to the petitioner to be paid by the second respondent, the then Inspector of Police, Mr. Mohan Thambi Rajan, who is responsible for all the misdeeds. Hence he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the petitioner. The Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to recover the above amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from the salary of Mr. Mohan Thambi Rajan, the then Inspector of Police in two monthly instalments and pay the same to the petitioner whose address is furnished hereunder: R. Mala, W/o. K. Ravichandran, 1/111, R.R. Nagar, (North), I.B. Colony, Narayanapuram, Madurai – 625 014. The Court is not awarding any compensation to be payable by the State because the State is not at fault. It is the official of the State at fault. Therefore, the amount is to be recovered from his salary so that the officials of the State will be careful in future. Since the third respondent is responsible for for creating all unnecessary litigation, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case, he should be directed to pay the costs. Accordingly, the second and third respondents are directed to pay costs of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, WPMP Nos. 2962 and 2963 of 2004 are closed.