Judgment : The petitioner is father of the deceased boy by name B.Uday Shekar, belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The deceased was studying VII Class in the year 1998 in A.P. Residential School for Scheduled Tribes at Utnoor of Adilabad District. Alleging that the deceased was suspected to be a person who had stolen away foot wear of one student on 02.04.1998, the deceased was beaten by four students in that residential school. At the time of the said incident, the deceased suffered injuries. After taking permission from the school authorities on 04.04.1998, the deceased along with another boy was proceeding to parents’ house of the deceased. After getting down the bus, the deceased fell down and died. Case in Crime No.6 of 1998 was registered by Jainoor Police under Section 302 I.P.C. against four boys who are said to have inflicted blows on the deceased. After conducting post-mortem on dead body of the deceased boy, post mortem examination certificate was issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Hospital, Utnoor, to the effect that death was due to head injury, as a result ofintracranial haemorrhage and contuse of brain. 2. Alleging that it was due to inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 namely Principal and House Master of the residential school, the petitioner approached this Court with this Writ Petition seeking ‘Writ of Mandamus’ against the respondents for payment of damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for depriving life of his son who was under custody of the respondent authorities. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is a case of custodial death and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation or damages to the petitioner for loss of his son. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is a case of custodial death and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation or damages to the petitioner for loss of his son. The 1st respondent on behalf of the respondents filed counter opposing this petition and contending that the incident which took place on 02.04.1998 was not brought to the notice of either the principal or the house master of the residential school and that after death of the student, there was agitation of the public in front of the school and that therefore, the principal and the house master were kept under suspension and that enquiry was ordered and that after enquiry the Assistant Project Director, I.T.D.A, Utnoor submitted report to the effect that though the cause of death seem to be due to beating of students, condition of the deceased boy deteriorated only after he boarded the bus on 04.04.1998 to go to his native place and that the police registered case and took the boys who were responsible for beating into custody and none of them was involved in this case and that there was no carelessness or laxity on the part of the Principal or the House Master before death of the deceased. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that though the respondents 2 and 3 were not the persons who were responsible for the beatings of the deceased, they failed to take immediate steps by sending the deceased boy to hospital after the incident which took place on 02.04.1998 and that it amounts to laxity or negligence on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 for which the Government is liable to pay compensation for the resultant death of the deceased boy. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on lot of case law on the subject. In Smt.Kolli Yerukulamma V. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam ( 1996(4) ALT 554 )of this Court, the boys were taking shelter in varandah of the school when there was heavy rain at 9.00 A.M. when class rooms were yet to be opened and suddenly there was collapse of brick columns resulting in fall of beams and roof slabs of first and second floor entrapping the children and causing instantaneous death of 13 children and multiple injuries to 36 children. This Court awarded compensation against Visakhapatnam Port Trust for death of the deceased boys. In A.V.Janaki Amma V. Union of India ( 2004(1) ALD 19 )this Court culled out the following principles from the decided case in India and Britain on the subject of strict liability of the State. “(i) Torts like assault, battery, and false imprisonment which are trespass to person by Police Officer and investigating agencies which are not authorised under law are Constitutional Torts. (ii) Awarding of compensation is public law remedy and available in a claim for deprivation of life and liberty alone. The compensation awarded is for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by the person due to illegal detention/imprisonment and is given to recompense for the inconvenience and distress suffered by the person. (iii) The order of compensation is in the nature of palliative and is passed to mulct the violators of the fundamental rights in payment of monetary compensation. (iv) When a person is arrested and imprisoned with malicious intention his constitutional and legal rights are said to be invaded. The malice and invasion of the right is not washed away by setting the person free and in appropriate cases the Court has jurisdiction to award compensation to the victim. (v) The public law remedy of monetarily compensating the violation of fundamental rights is part of the constitutional scheme based on strict liability for such contravention of rights and therefore the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply as it applies in private law. (vi) Judically evolved right to compensation in public law is available for breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right, but it is given for infringement of inalienable right to life and by way of applying balm to the wounds of the deceased family. (vii) For the tortuous acts of the Government Officers and Police Officers, the State is liable to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights to life and liberty. (viii) The order for awarding compensation need not be in the coercive form. It can be by way of declaration of the right of the person to be paid by the Government certain amount to be assessed by the Court. This is especially so in a case where fundamental right to property is breached in violation of law.” It was a case of medical negligence on the part of Government Doctors. It can be by way of declaration of the right of the person to be paid by the Government certain amount to be assessed by the Court. This is especially so in a case where fundamental right to property is breached in violation of law.” It was a case of medical negligence on the part of Government Doctors. In Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera V. State of Orissa ((1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746)the deceased died while in police custody. The Supreme Court held that in such a case, relief of compensation can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is a case of violation of fundamental rights of the citizen. The Supreme Court observed: “It would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort. It may be mentioned straightaway 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. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings.” In M.S.Grewal V. Deep Chand Sood ((2001)8 Supreme Court Cases 151)of the Supreme Court is a case whether the Supreme Court granted compensation for negligence on the part of teachers who accompanied students to the Bank of River Beas during which visit there was unfortunate death of 14 young kids. While awarding compensation, the Supreme Court applied the principles enunciated in LataWadhwa V. State of Bihar ((2001)8 Supreme Court Cases 197)and finally awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for each death. 4) In this case, the respondents who were having custody of the deceased minor boy aged 17 years in their residential school, cannot evade knowledge of the incident which took place on 02.04.1998 on the ground that it was not brought to their notice. 4) In this case, the respondents who were having custody of the deceased minor boy aged 17 years in their residential school, cannot evade knowledge of the incident which took place on 02.04.1998 on the ground that it was not brought to their notice. The Post Mortem examination report discloses presence of external injuries on the deceased boy which are as follows: “1. Two abrasions (Graze) present on the Rt. Dorsum of foot of 1 cm diameter in each. 2. Deep bruise of 4 cm diameter present between the parietal eminences.” 5) Even though the above injury No.1 is small and superficial, injury No.2 is a deep bruise on parietal region. In spite of the deceased boy having external injuries and moving about in the residential school area for two days after the incident, the respondents 2 and 3 did not notice the same and did not take any steps to send the boy for immediate medical examination and treatment. The incident on 02.04.1998 took place during night between 8.30 to 9.00 P.M. In spite of the deceased boy not attending for the supervised study on 02.04.1998 from 7.00 P.M. to 9.00 P.M, the house master did not take note of absence of the deceased boy in the supervised study and did notice incident which took place between 8.30 and 9.00 P.M. It suggests either total absence of the house master during those hours or negligence of the house master in noticing the incident in which the deceased boy suffered injuries in the hands of 4 other inmates of the same residential school. Though there was no direct involvement of any of the respondents 2 and 3 in the incident, there was certainly lack of supervision and negligence in taking care of the deceased boy and it resulted in the incident on 02.04.1998 which culminated into death of the deceased boy due to the injuries suffered in that incident after lapse of two days on 04.04.1998. In that view of the matter, the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner who is mother of the deceased boy. 6) The amount of compensation claimed in this writ petition is to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- is in no way excessive, having regard to the measures adopted by the Supreme Court supra in awarding the compensation. In that view of the matter, the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner who is mother of the deceased boy. 6) The amount of compensation claimed in this writ petition is to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- is in no way excessive, having regard to the measures adopted by the Supreme Court supra in awarding the compensation. 7) In the result, Rule Nisi is made absolute directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner for death of her son Udayasekhar together with interest at 6% p.a. thereon from the date of filing of this writ petition in this Court, within six months from today.