Order By means of this writ petition, the petitioners effort is to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the public law remedy for death of Sahalam Mian on 21.01.2012 as a result of firing by the Border Guards of Bangladesh, the BGB in short, intruding into the India territory. Sahalam Mian had not contributed in any manner for his death. [2] The undisputed fact as emerged from the records is that Sahalam Mian, the deceased, used to reside with his family, comprised of the petitioners in a place called Tarakpur under Sonamura Police Station, which is adjoining to the Indo Bangladesh border. He was earning his livelihood from farming. Their house is situated along the Indo Bangladesh Border, hardly 6070 ft. away from the border. On 20.01.2012, at about 6 am in the morning, when Sahalam Mian went to attend the nature’s call at the back side of their house, suddenly the petitioner No.1 heard sound and fury of the altercation. She immediately came out of her room with her son and on reaching the spot, she saw that her husband was lying on the ground with bullet injury, fired by the BGB. The petitioner No.1 found that some members of the BGB were dragging the body of Sahalam Mian towards the territory of Bangladesh. The petitioners tried to resist them but failed. When they raised alarm, people from the locality rushed to the spot. Then the members of the BGB fled away and one assailant was caught by the local people and later on, handed over the said assailant to the BSF personnel. The person who was apprehended was identified as Lutfar Rehman (HC). The petitioner No.1 along with others immediately shifted Sahalam to Dhanpur hospital where the attending Medical Officer declared him dead. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 lodged an FIR to the Sonamura P.S. and that was registered as Sonamura P.S. case No.13 of 2012 under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the IPP Act. The petitioner No.1 came to know that the person who was apprehended had been released by the BSF. The petitioner No.1 came to know that the person who was apprehended had been released by the BSF. The petitioner No.1 has asserted in the writ petition that Sahalam Mian was a law abiding citizen and the members of the BGB intruded into the Indian territory and committed that crime as the BSF which are responsible for guarding the border to ensure the safety of the citizens failed to stop their intrusion into the Indian territory. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura, the respondent No.5 herein, had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner No.1 as the financial help after death of her husband. The other respondents have neither paid any financial help nor any other help for survival of their family till now. The petitioner No.1 has further asserted that the respondents are liable to compensate the family of Sahalam Mian as his right to life could be taken away for their lapse in guarding the border. The petitioners thus urged for adequate compensation and for a job in their family. The petitioners have also urged for interim compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- as it appears from the records that no such interim compensation has been directed by this Court. [3] The respondents No.1, 3 & 4 by filing the counter affidavit have challenged the maintainability of the writ petition but admitted the fact of intrusion of some members of BGB into the Indian territory. To have their version, the relevant parts are reproduced hereunder: I. That it is submitted that on 20 Jan' 2012 at about 0600 hrs Regt No. 37955 Hav Lutfur Rahman of Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB), Post Bawara Bazar, Ex33 BGB alongwith Ct Mohammad, Ct Alamgir (FSU) and one other Constable (name not known) of BGB entered into Indian territory during hot pursuit of some unknown persons. On seeing them, Shah Alam, aged about 40 yrs, S/O Late Aftar Ali, village Tarapukar, PO Dhanpur, PS Sonamura Distt-Tripura (West) who was present there to attend natures call, intercepted and told them that they had entered into Indian territory. II. On this, without provocation BGB patrol party started beating and dragging him towards Bangladesh territory. Shah Alam shouted for help, and on his such shouting, his family members and few villagers of village Tarapukur rushed to the spot and made an attempt to save him from BGB patrol party. II. On this, without provocation BGB patrol party started beating and dragging him towards Bangladesh territory. Shah Alam shouted for help, and on his such shouting, his family members and few villagers of village Tarapukur rushed to the spot and made an attempt to save him from BGB patrol party. Hav Lutfur Rahman of BGB fired 4/5 rounds from his personal weapon due to which Shah Alam sustained three bullets injuries and on his evacuation to Civil Hospital Dhanpur, he was declared 'brought dead'. III. At about 0615 hrs, on getting information, Inspr Dinanath, Offg Coy Comdr, BOP Dhanpur ('A' Coy Ex29 Bn BSF) alongwith his party rushed to the place of occurrence, took over the custody of Hav Lutfur Rahman, of BGB and brought him at BOP Dhanpur. IV. Commandant 29 BN BSF, DIG (G) Ftr HQ BSF Tripura, DIG (P), SP Sipahijala alongwith their team also visited the spot. An FIR pertaining to the aforesaid incident was lodged by Smt Rehana Bibi w/o deceased with Police Station Sonamura. V. Immediately after this incident, five Indian nationals of Indian villages Shovapur and Sobapur, PS Sonamura, who had gone to Bangladesh from unfenced patch were detained there by Border Guard personnel of Bangladesh (BGB) between 07.00 hrs to 07.30 hrs. On the same day, from 11.50 hrs to 14.30 hrs, BN Commander level flag meeting was held near BP No. 2088/M in which BSF lodged strong protest about illegally crossing over the IB by BGB Hav Lutfur Rahman and killing one innocent Indian national namely Shah Alam. VI. Further, on the same day, from 2330 hrs to 0220 hrs, near BP No. 2023/6S ACP/Akhoura (India side), Sector Commander level flag meeting was held. VII. During meeting, Col. Md. Rushtam Ali, Sector Comdr, Comilla expressed his deep condolence for killing of one Indian National by one of the BGB members namely Hav Md. Lutfur Rahman. He also expressed his gratefulness to the BSF authorities for rescuing the BGB person from the agitated villagers and assured strict action against the accused as per the law of the land after proper investigation. Lutfur Rahman. He also expressed his gratefulness to the BSF authorities for rescuing the BGB person from the agitated villagers and assured strict action against the accused as per the law of the land after proper investigation. Thereafter, Regt No. 37955 Hav Lutfur Rahman of BOP Barwa Bazar, 33 BGB alongwith following items recovered from place of occurrence was handed over to BGB delegation by BSF: i) Empty fired cartridges - 04 Nos (Lot No. BOF05) ii) Bullet - 01 iii) BD Currency (Taka) - 552/- iv) Bunches of key - 01 VIII. Later on, at about 21-15 hrs on 2001-2012, out of 05 apprehended Indian nationals, 04 personnel were released by BGB and subsequently on 2001-2012 at about 0700 hrs another 01 Indian national was released by BGB.” [Emphasis added] However, those respondents have denied that they can be held responsible for the said occurrence. Immediately, after receiving the information of that untoward incident, the BSF had sounded their response in respect of the illegal intrusion of the armed BGB personnel inside the Indian territory. Thus, they have denied that they can be held responsible for the death of Sahalam Mian or Sahalam, an innocent Indian citizen. [4] The respondents No.2 & 5 have filed the separate counter affidavit. According to them, the said incident took place in a part where the border fencing is yet to be erected. They have levelled the allegations against Sahalam Mian to be involved in smuggling of phensedyl, which drug is widely misused in Bangladesh. But they have admitted that Sahalam Mian had three children and wife. According to them, for the said felonious act, the State cannot be made responsible for the compensation. [5] Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that without any basis, allegations against Sahalam Mian, since deceased have been levelled of being involved in the smuggling. But the BSF, in their counter affidavit, has given a cleanchit about the antecedent of the deceased Sahalam. The said allegation has been controverted by the petitioners by filing a rejoinder. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that the public law remedy is as expansive as to reach where it is necessary for doing the justice. He has relied on a decision of this Court in Selina Aktar @ Khatoon and Ors. The said allegation has been controverted by the petitioners by filing a rejoinder. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that the public law remedy is as expansive as to reach where it is necessary for doing the justice. He has relied on a decision of this Court in Selina Aktar @ Khatoon and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2014) 2 TLR 447 where an Indian citizen was killed by the BSF on chase as the deceased was suspected of being a smuggler but the BSF could not provide any proof as to the antecedent of the deceased. [6] Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has further relied on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in State of Tripura & Anr. vs. Smt. Sulekha Sarkar & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 Gauhati 159 where having referred to the decision of the apex court in M.V. Elisabeth vs. Harwan Investment and Trading (P) Ltd., reported in 1993 Supp (2) 433 it has been held that: The judicial power of this country, which is an aspect of national sovereignty, is vested in the people and is articulated in the provisions of the Constitution and the laws and is exercised by courts empowered to exercise it. It is absurd to confine that power to the provisions of imperial statutes of a bygone age. Access to court which is an important right vested in every citizen implies the existence of the power of the Court to render justice according to law. Where statute is silent and judicial intervention is required, Courts strive to redress grievances according to what is perceived to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. [Emphasis added] [7] From the other side, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.2 & 5 has submitted that this is not a case where the public law remedy should be invoked by this Court. There is no failure in the duty of the sovereign for which the public law remedy can be exercised. It is the foreign intruders who killed Sahalam Mian. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has further submitted that the killing at the hand of the intruders however may be shocking and unfortunate, for that the State cannot be made responsible or held liable to compensate for such death. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General however admitted that the basic facts are not disputed by them. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has further submitted that the killing at the hand of the intruders however may be shocking and unfortunate, for that the State cannot be made responsible or held liable to compensate for such death. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General however admitted that the basic facts are not disputed by them. [8] Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned C.G.C appearing for the respondents No.1,3 and 4 has adopted the submission of Mr. Das, learned Advocate General and submitted that the BSF personal had not failed in performing their duties. Somehow, a contingent of the BGB had intruded to the Indian territory and killed Sahalam Mian. He has further submitted that part of the border is not fenced as yet. [9] Having regard to the point and the counter point as projected by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is reminded what the apex court had articulated in Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 that: 'A claim in public law for compensation' for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is 'distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. [Emphasis added] [10] The public law remedy has seen significant development over the years from the decision of the apex court in Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in AIR (1983) 4 SCC 141 to Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2006) 3 SCC 178 . But the words used by the apex court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 are the guiding direction in this jurisdiction: “The Court, where the infringement of the fundamental right is established, therefore, cannot stop by giving a mere declaration. It must proceed further to give compensatory relief, not by way of damages as in a civil action but by way of compensation under the pubic law jurisdiction for the wrong done, due to the breach of public duty by the State of not protecting the fundamental right to life of the citizen. To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience.” [Emphasis added] [11] In this case, it is the undisputed position of fact that the deceased Sahalam Mian had no criminal antecedent. A fleeting comment made by the respondents that he was involved in smuggling is not based on any record and no police records, in this regard, could be produced. It has not been disputed by any respondent that there had been no provocation inviting the intruders to the Indian territory. A small contingent of the BGB intruded into the India territory and killed an innocent citizen as the border was totally unguarded by the agency which had been entrusted to manage the border so that the citizen’s safety is not compromised at any moment. Even though the respondents No.2,3 & 4 have denied that there had been any dereliction on their part but having regard to the principle of resipsaloquitur, this can firmly be said that the death of Sahalam Mian itself is the clinching testimony of their dereliction in discharging the duty for protecting the life of an innocent citizen. As such, it is declared that that the fundamental right to life has been breached irretrievably for their dereliction. This Court will not stop by mere declaring such dereliction. As such, it is declared that that the fundamental right to life has been breached irretrievably for their dereliction. This Court will not stop by mere declaring such dereliction. As respondents No.1,3 & 4 have failed to discharge their strict liability, they are directed to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three lacs) to the petitioner No.1, being the legal guardian and custodian of petitioners No.2,3 & 4 who are the minors. The respondents No.2 and 5 are further directed to explore the possibility whether a job can be provided to the family of Sahalam Mian. The compensation as assessed shall be paid by the respondents No.1, 3 & 4 within a period of 6(six) months from today without fail. Having held so, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.