Judgment This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his son viz., Sudarsan, on 07.02.2010 during the N.S.S. Programme of the fourth respondent College with interest from the date of eligibility till realization. 2. The petitioner is working as a Labour in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. His son, viz., Sudarsan was admitted in the fourth respondent College in B.Com.(C.A.) Course and was studying first year. The fourth respondent conducted several programmes in N.S.S. for one week from 01.02.2010 to 07.02.2010. The petitioner's son participated in the N.S.S. Programme and he was taken to the Camp for one week by the fourth respondent College. According to the petitioner, before taking his son for N.S.S. Camp, the fourth respondent College did not obtain consent from his parents. 3. On 07.02.2010, the petitioner was informed by one of the College authorities that his son died near Chockkathevanpatti, Nattapatti Village. Immediately, he rushed to the spot and found that his son died in the water tank. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Valandur Police Station. The Inspector of Police, Valandur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner claims Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his son, which had occurred due to the negligence and careless attitude of the respondents 2 to 4. 4. The fourth respondent having taken the petitioner's son to the N.S.S. Camp, failed to take proper care of the students. The death of the petitioner's son is due to failure on the part of the fourth respondent to perform their public duty. The respondents 1 to 3 are the controlling authority of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 5. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit denying their liability. They have stated that they do not have any control over the internal administration of the fourth respondent College. There is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], to intervene in the internal administration of the College. As per Section 12 of the Act, the powers are dedicated to the Secretaries of the concerned Colleges. There is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], to intervene in the internal administration of the College. As per Section 12 of the Act, the powers are dedicated to the Secretaries of the concerned Colleges. The extra-curricular activities of the aided Colleges and the responsibility to take safety measures lies with the Principal and the Secretary to the concerned College. They further stated that the petitioner's son was studying first year in self-financing course and therefore, no liability can be fastened on them. 6. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit denying their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner on following grounds: (a) The writ petition is not maintainable. The fourth respondent is a private College and no fundamental right has been violated by them. (b) The claim for compensation can be decided only by letting in evidence in civil proceedings. The petitioner has to let in evidence and prove the alleged negligence on the part of the fourth respondent. (c) The Management is nowhere connected with the N.S.S. Programme and only the Principal of the College is having control over the N.S.S. Programme. (d) When the students were taken for N.S.S. Camp, the consent of the parents must be obtained, if they are day-scholars and as far as the students staying in Hostel are concerned, the consent of the Warden and Deputy Warden has to be obtained. In the present case, the petitioner's son was taken with the consent of the Deputy Warden of the Hostel. (e) Three Programme Officers and six second year students took care of 123 students, who were attending the N.S.S. Camp. (f) All the students were taken proper care and were strictly warned not to leave the Camp without permission of the Programme Officers. (g) On the last day of the Camp, i.e. 07.02.2010, all the Students were informed that after breakfast in the morning, it was decided to wind up the Camp. The same was announced to N.S.S. Volunteers and Students by the Programme Officers and all of them were fully engaged in collecting the packing materials with a view to return to the College. The same was announced to N.S.S. Volunteers and Students by the Programme Officers and all of them were fully engaged in collecting the packing materials with a view to return to the College. (h) While so, some of the students including the petitioner's son without information, intimation and permission from the Programme Officers, have gone to a place called Chockkathevanpatti, which is two kilometres away from the place of the Camp, to take bath in a Pond situated at that place. (i) The act of the petitioner's son is a voluntary action, which caused his death. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit. 9. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgements: (i) S.Sendhilkumar and others Vs. Shri Angalamman College of Engineering and Technology [ 2009 (3) MLJ 774 ], wherein in paragraph 10, it has been held as follows: "10. ..... Such understanding of the said judgment would keep things beyond pale of any doubt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the entire educational institution, as one unit, is imparting education to the children and, therefore, the functions of such institutions amount to public duty. Here, for imparting education, even non-teaching staff in the College are also doing some job. In the absence of non-teaching staff, the institution cannot run. Therefore, as a whole, the institution should be held to be as one unit, which discharges its public duty of imparting education to the students. Therefore, there cannot be any distinction between teaching and non-teaching staff, while applying Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in K.Krishnamacharyulu's case were also non-teaching staff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in respect of non-teaching staff, the writ remedy is available to them. For all the above reasons, I hold that the present Writ Petition is maintainable against the respondent." (ii) Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others Vs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in respect of non-teaching staff, the writ remedy is available to them. For all the above reasons, I hold that the present Writ Petition is maintainable against the respondent." (ii) Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others Vs. V.R.Rudani and others [ 1989 (2) SCC 691 ], wherein in paragraph 15, it has been held as follows: "15. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated that the appellants-trust was managing the affiliated college to which public money is paid as government aid. Public money paid as government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions. The aided institutions like government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students. They are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. Their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities. Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of any public character [See The Evolving Indian Administrative Law by M.P.Jain (1983), p.226]. So are the service conditions of the academic staff. When the University takes a decision regarding their pay scales, it will be binding on the management. The service conditions of the academic staff are, therefore, not purely of a private character. It has super-added protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. When there is existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party." 10. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent filed Additional Typed Set of Papers and referred to the Invitation for the N.S.S. Camp, wherein the starting time of the Programme has been mentioned as 9.00 a.m. and at 11.00 a.m. there was a Programme at K.Nattapatti Community Hall. Based on the said Programme list, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent argued that, the petitioner's son and others did not attend the Programme on 07.02.2010 and left the Camp without permission of the Programme Officers. Based on the said Programme list, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent argued that, the petitioner's son and others did not attend the Programme on 07.02.2010 and left the Camp without permission of the Programme Officers. According to the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, the said Chockkathevanpatti is four kilometres away from the place of Camp. Therefore, the petitioner's son died due to carelessness and negligence. Further, according to him, the petitioner's son is a College student and he must know his responsibility and obey the orders of his superiors i.e., Programme Officers. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the Programme Officers took care of the students and therefore, the fourth respondent is not liable to pay any compensation cannot be accepted. Having taken the students to the N.S.S. Camp, it is the duty of the Programme Officers of the fourth respondent to bring back all the students safely to the College. The petitioner's son and others have left the Camp without informing the Programme Officers and without their permission. Even if the same is taken as negligence, it can be only contributory negligence and it will not exonerate the fourth respondent's liability to pay the compensation. 12. The contention of the fourth respondent is contrary to law as per well settled judicial pronouncements. 13. This Court in the Judgment, dated 29.04.2014, made in W.A.(MD) Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2012 [The Chairman, TNEB, Chennai and others Vs. Karuppayeeammal], in which I was a party, held that compensation for death due to negligence of opposite party is maintainable by way of writ proceedings. It is not necessary the affected party must only seek his remedy by way of civil suit. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said Judgment reads as under:- "9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the writ petition claiming compensation are not maintainable and that the proper remedy is only before the civil court by way of civil suit. But, his contention is untenable as this issue is no longer res integra. 10. One of us (V.Ramasubramanian, J) had an occasion to consider this issue recently in a decision dated 28.02.2014 in Writ Petition No.61 of 2009 [D.NARAYANASAMY VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS]. But, his contention is untenable as this issue is no longer res integra. 10. One of us (V.Ramasubramanian, J) had an occasion to consider this issue recently in a decision dated 28.02.2014 in Writ Petition No.61 of 2009 [D.NARAYANASAMY VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS]. It was held therein: "When things speak for themselves, this Court has a constitutional social obligation not to drive the parties to the civil court especially in the cases of this nature. This is borne out by several decisions of Supreme Court as well as this Court."" 14. In addition to this Judgment, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of Judgments, especially in the Judgments reported in 1989 (2) SCC 691 [supra] and 2009 (3) MLJ 774 [supra], which are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, held that the function of the fourth respondent College imparting education amounts to public duty and therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction. 15. The next question to be decided is on the issue of quantum of compensation. The quantum of compensation has to be arrived at only by fixing notional income, which the petitioner's son would have earned, as he was a minor at the time of his death. 16. The petitioner's son was studying in the fourth respondent College in first year B.Com (C.A.) Course. In normal circumstances, he could have completed the course and got a decent job. In the circumstances, the notional income, which the petitioner's son would have received is fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month with career prospects. The annual loss of income for the petitioner's son shall be taken as Rs.1,20,000/- (at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month). The petitioner's son was studying in first year B.Com. (C.A.) Course and aged about 17 years and the multiplier to be adopted is 16'. Even if the annual loss of income is deducted by 50%, the compensation payable would be Rs.60,000/- and after applying the multiplier 16', the total compensation comes to Rs.9,60,000/- and deducting a sum of Rs.4,60,000/-, as the petitioner's son left the place along with other students without informing the Programme Officers, the fourth respondent is held liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. In addition to that, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The respondents 1 to 3 were noway connected with the organization of N.S.S. Camp. In addition to that, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. The respondents 1 to 3 were noway connected with the organization of N.S.S. Camp. Therefore, they cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 17. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the fourth respondent failed to pay this amount within the time limit fixed, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7 p.a. from the date of incident, viz., 07.02.2010till the date of payment in full. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.