JUDGMENT VINOD PRASAD, J. - ‘Life is life because it is animate and living in death there is darkness and vacuum’ 2.Preamble to the Indian Constitution resonates one of the goals, out of many, to be achieved by adopting, enacting and giving to ourselves the Constitution, is to provide most noble and serene “Justice Social, Economic and Political”, without which existence of democratic society and polity will be unimaginable and unthinkable. Social Justice can prevail only when Rule of Law exist and pervades entire society. For existence of Rule of Law ensuring security to the life of individuals is sine qua non and whenever it is breached the culprit must be punished. Cherished goal of social Justice finds its; most illuminating example in the most clamoured Article, which is Article 21, preserving life and liberty of the individuals, embedded in Chapter III of The Constitution, Titled as Fundamental Rights. It is pivotal and core of the Constitution. It is its’ basic structure with which nobody can tinkle. 3.With preface as above, here now we deal with a public law remedy case where the most sacred right to life, embodied under Article 21, has been destroyed and the victim’s family clamour for retribution may be in the form of monetary compensation. But before we put our aplomb thoughts on the incisively harangued submissions, a recapitulation of the background facts, which are indispensable, are being reproduced below. 4.Arakshita Pradhan, a schedule tribe community member, the petitioner, is a resident of village Kantol, under P.O./P.S. Athagarh District Cuttack. He had/has a only son Krushna Chandra Pradhan @ Kalia, aged about 31 years, who was gainfully employed as pickup van driver, plying white colour pickup van having registration no. OR-05 AC 0260, owned by one Silu Panda, resident of O.M.P. Square, Cuttack. Two businessmen of Kamakshya Nagar hired pickup van of Krushna Chandra Pradhan @Kalia, to transport fifteen (15) bags of cattle feed from Cuttack to Kamakshy Nagar and consequently on 21.2.2009, Krushna Chandra Pradhan @ Kaila loaded aforesaid cattle feed bags from Cuttack Malgodam market in his van and proceeded from the destination. Two businessmen of Kamakshya Nagar hired pickup van of Krushna Chandra Pradhan @Kalia, to transport fifteen (15) bags of cattle feed from Cuttack to Kamakshy Nagar and consequently on 21.2.2009, Krushna Chandra Pradhan @ Kaila loaded aforesaid cattle feed bags from Cuttack Malgodam market in his van and proceeded from the destination. On his way the son had a telephonic conversation with the petitioner father who was informed by him that he (the son) will return by 11 p.m. but the destiny had something pathetic and miserable in store, as the beloved only son never returned thereafter and he along with the pickup van vanished, we don’t know where initially the petitioner vainly endeavoured to locate whereabouts of his son but being dejected he lodged and unmanned FIR, annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, before Kom-Nagar police Station in district Dhenkanal, on 25.3.2009 at 11 a.m., mentioning date of incident as 21.2.2009, which FIR was registered u/s 363/34 I.P.C. Voter identity card of the son as well as his caste certificate both were annexed with the FIR as supporting materials, which are annexure nos. 2 & 3 to the writ petition. Since Kom-Nagar police did not act assiduously nor it took any action to trace out the corpus of the son, that the petitioner approached, through post, higher police officials S.P. (Police) and Collector Dhenkenal rueing his grievance about the feckless inertness of the police in tracing out the son, the receipts of which are annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. Copy of complaint dated 28.3.2009 lodged by the petitioner before S.P. (police) is annexure no.. 5. Meanwhile petitioner continued frantic search of his son and went to many places but all his endeavours were unsuccessful as the son could not be traced out. After losing all hopes the petitioner made another attempt by lodging another FIR with I.I.C. Chauliaganj police station district Cuttack and also before I.I.C., police station Athagarh, copies of which are annexure no. 6 & 7. Inspite of all what the petitioner could do to trace out his missing son, but alas, he could not be found because of inaction by the police echelons and their ineptness. Petition was apprehensive that his missing son might have been kidnapped by some unknown miscreants and his pickup van might have been looted. 6 & 7. Inspite of all what the petitioner could do to trace out his missing son, but alas, he could not be found because of inaction by the police echelons and their ineptness. Petition was apprehensive that his missing son might have been kidnapped by some unknown miscreants and his pickup van might have been looted. Expressing other apprehensions that the petitioner, as a last resort to overcome his miseries, approached this Court and invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, and preferred instant writ petition, on 21.7.2009, with the prayer to call respondents herein “to show cause as to what steps they have taken to trace the missing son of the petitioner and if the Opp.Parties fail to show any cause or show any insufficient cause, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Opp.Parties to produce the missing son of the petitioner in person in Court or in the alternative issue any appropriate writ/writs directing the Opp.Parties to take immediate and prompt action on the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner and pass any other order/orders as would be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.” 5.Respondent State by filing various counter affidavit and Misc. Applications, while un-contesting petitioner’s claim, expressed and depicted only vulnerability of it’s investigating officers, their ineptness in conducting investigation and perfunctory nature of it, which, at stages, by various Benches was found to be slack and gibberish projecting that no worthwhile attempt was made by the investigating agency during entire process and ultimately respondent have agreed to pay compensation to the victim and his family. All assertions by the respondents are flimsy excuses. Whatever transpired during pendency of the writ petition will evince such an epilogue and therefore it is apt to register them. 6. The writ petition came up before a Division Bench of this Court on 4.8.2009, when learned counsel for the State was directed to obtain instruction and file a preliminary counter, if necessary. Thereafter the matter came up again on 31.8.2009 when following order was passed by this Court:- “Heard. The son of the petitioner who is a driver is missing from 21.02.2009 along with the vehicle. The Investigating Officer, Kamakhyanagar P.S. is present in Court. Thereafter the matter came up again on 31.8.2009 when following order was passed by this Court:- “Heard. The son of the petitioner who is a driver is missing from 21.02.2009 along with the vehicle. The Investigating Officer, Kamakhyanagar P.S. is present in Court. According to him, all steps are being taken to trace out the vehicle as well as the son of the petitioner. He prays for one month further time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the matter be listed one week after. Learned counsel for the State shall file an affidavit in the meanwhile” Again on 7.10.2009, below quoted order was passed by this Court:- “According to learned counsel for the State investigation is still under progress and neither the victim person nor the vehicle has been traced out as yet. The report with regard to the missing person was given on 25.03.2009. Seven months have passed in the meanwhile.” In view of the aforesaid facts, we adjourn the case for a period of two weeks and direct the Investigating Officer, Kamakhyanagar P.S. to either file an affidavit with regard to the whereabouts of the victim person or appear before this Court in person. List this matter on 22.10.2009" 7.The writ petition again was taken up on 22.10.2009. when this Court noted with dissatisfaction scanty regard by the I.O. in complying with orders passed by this Court in the following terms:- “Heard. An F.I.R. was lodged on 14.03.2009 at Kamakshya Nagar Police Station intimating that the son of the petitioner along with a white colour Pick-up-Van bearing Regn. No. OR-05-AC-0260 was missing. This Court by order dated 07.10.2009 being not satisfied with the progress in the investigation directed the Investigating Officer, Kamakshya Nagar Police Station either to file an affidavit with regard to the whereabouts of the victim person or appear before this Court in person. Neither the I.O. has filed the affidavit nor appeared in person before this Court, instead he has sent an Asst. Sub-Inspector of the said P.S. to appear. The said A.S.I. appeared and prayed for some time on the ground that the I.O. is busy in “Maobadi” operation. The explanation given reveals that the I.O. has scant regard to the rule of law. He should have appeared before this Court or should have filed an affidavit indicating what steps he has taken. The said A.S.I. appeared and prayed for some time on the ground that the I.O. is busy in “Maobadi” operation. The explanation given reveals that the I.O. has scant regard to the rule of law. He should have appeared before this Court or should have filed an affidavit indicating what steps he has taken. He has chose not to do either. But then, in order to give another opportunity, we adjourn the case to 29th October 2009. On the said date the Investigation Officer, Kamakshya Nagar police Station shall appear before this Court along with the case records and also file an affidavit indicating what steps he has taken in the aforesaid matter. The S.P. Kamakshya Nagar Police Station is also directed to look into the matter and issue necessary direction to the concerned I.O. A free copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State.” Next order was passed on 29.10.2009 in the following term:- “In response to order dated 22.10.2009 Sri Pramod Kumar Lenka, the Investigation Officer of the case appeared in Court in person. He has also filed an affidavit indicating the steps taken by him till date. He prays for one month further time to trace out the vehicle as well as the missing person. On being satisfied that adequate steps have been taken till date we direct that the matter be listed on 2nd December, 2009. It is made clear that if the vehicle is traced out in the meanwhile, an affidavit shall be filed before this Court. The personal appearance of Sir Lenka is dispensed with for the time being.” Again the writ petition was placed before the Bench on 2.12.2009, when this Court ordered as under:- “Perused the affidavit filed by the A.S.I. of Police, Kamakshya Nagar Police Station wherein it is stated that steps are being taken by the Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal for publication of photographs of the victim for C.I.G. and also for publication in T.V. and media apart from daily newspapers. Put up this case after two weeks. Further development in the case be intimated to this Court. We find that in case of such nature, the A.S.I. has sworn this affidavit instead of the I.I.C. of the Police Station. Such practice should not be encouraged. Put up this case after two weeks. Further development in the case be intimated to this Court. We find that in case of such nature, the A.S.I. has sworn this affidavit instead of the I.I.C. of the Police Station. Such practice should not be encouraged. The Superintendent of police, Dhenkanal is also directed to entrust the matter to a responsible Police Officer so that appropriate steps can be taken in finding out the victim. A copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.” 8.Thereafter, it transpires that the writ petition was not listed for a longish period and whenever it is listed it was got passed over and hence interregnum no worthwhile order was passed and hence few order sheets are being eschewed from being reproduced. The writ petition was taken up again on 29.10.2015 when this Court directed Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack and Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal to appear in person. Mr. Panda, Additional Government Advocate had under taken to communicate the order to those officials and 4.11.2015 was the date fixed. However the matter was taken up on 5.11.2015 was the date fixed. When both the aforesaid officials presented themselves before this Court and following observations was by this Court in it’s order of the date:- “xxx xxx xxx The Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack is present before this Court. Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate supplied the case Diary which was also returned to him after due perusal. On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that on 15.05.2014 the Final Report was submitted under Section 364/34 IPC to the effect of No Clue. In view of the above, this Court directs learned Additional Government to file an affidavit enclosing a copy of the Final Report and indicating in the affidavit as to whether the Final Report has been accepted or not. Put up this matter on 16.11.2015" 9.Thereafter the writ petition was deferred on many dates at the request by Additional Government Advocates and the case did not budge even a step and finally when the writ petition was taken up on 1.2.2016 this Court made a very strong castigating observations on the entire investigatory steps in the following words:- “Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal is personally present in the matter. Perusal of the Case Diary shows us a very sordid picture of investigation, which is a speak on the investigatory process. Neither the vehicle nor the driver could be traced out even after seven years have gone by. This is a very sordid state of affairs. The audacity of the investigating agency was so much that he even filed a final form. We are of the opinion that further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is desirable so as to make all efforts are leave no stone un-turned to trace out the driver as well as the vehicle. For this proper application can be made to the concerned Magistrate. Let the Investigating Officer come up before us again on 18.03.2016 and apprises us as to what investigation he has carried out and in the meanwhile, if the driver and the vehicle is traced out the Investigating Officer is directed to send a FAX to the Registrar General of this Court and in that eventuality, Registrar General is directed to list this matter in the cause list before us showing it as part heard for further deliberations. The Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal, is present personally before us, we direct with hope and trust that he will monitor the investigation intelligently and will not pass on the buck. List this matter on 18.03.2016. Free copy of this order be supplied to the learned Additional Government Advocate for compliance.” 10.Similar observation followed suit on following dates 28.3.2016, 9.5.2016, 8.7.2016, 25.8.2016 and 19.9.2016. Orders of these dates are extracted cumulatively herein below for the sake of convenience:- “Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack; Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal with his band of junior officers who are investigating the matter are present in Court today along with learned Additional Government Advocate. Case diary is produced before us for our perusal. The fact of the matter is that in fact no serious effort has been made by the Investigating Agency to trace out the vehicle and the missing driver. Sri J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate is heard at length. Sri J.Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate tried his level best to justify the ineptness on the part of Investigating Agency in tracing out the vehicle and he even made an endeavour to point out fingers towards the petitioner. We consider that it is not for the petitioner to investigate the issue. Sri J.Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate tried his level best to justify the ineptness on the part of Investigating Agency in tracing out the vehicle and he even made an endeavour to point out fingers towards the petitioner. We consider that it is not for the petitioner to investigate the issue. It is for the police to conduct investigation in all fairness. At the request of Sri J.K. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate, we permit 1 ½ month further time for tracing out the vehicle and the missing driver. Let this matter come up on board again on 9th May, 2016. Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal, who is present before us need not be present henceforth unless directed by this Court but he will depute some responsible officers to apprise us about the aforesaid facts. Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack is directed to appear in persons in Court on the next date and apprise us the latest position. Free copy of this order be supplied to Sri J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for communication and compliance.” “09.05.2016 All the police officers, namely, R.C. Behera, Superintendent of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack; Bishnu Charan Barik, Inspector of Police, Dhenkanal and Sk. Karim, S.D.P.O, Dhenkanal, who are entrusted with the investigation are present in person. An affidavit has been filed by Bishnu Charan Barik, Inspector of Police, Dhenkanal in Court today. It is informed by learned Additional Government Advocate that all serious efforts are being made for the purpose of tracing out the missing persons as well as the vehicle. One and half months has been prayed for. We, after hearing learned Additional Government Advocate, consider it appropriate to permit the aforesaid time. Let the matter shall come up on board again on 8the July, 2016. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file an affidavit regarding progress in the matter on the aforesaid date. Officers, who are investigating the matter, are directed to apprise us the steps which they have taken interregnum on the next date. Superintend of Police, CID, CB, Cuttack need not appear henceforth but the rest of the officers are directed to appear in person on the next date. 08.07.2016 Earlier this matter was fixed to 08.07.2016. On being mentioned by police officers concerned, this matter is taken up today. List again on 12.08.2016. Both the police officers Shri Bishnu Charan Barik, I.O./IIC-Parjang PS, Dist. 08.07.2016 Earlier this matter was fixed to 08.07.2016. On being mentioned by police officers concerned, this matter is taken up today. List again on 12.08.2016. Both the police officers Shri Bishnu Charan Barik, I.O./IIC-Parjang PS, Dist. Dhenkanal and Shri Sekh. Abdul Karim, SDPO, Kamakshyanagar, Dist. Dhenkanal are present in Court. they are directed to appear on the next date to apprise us on the latest position. Meanwhile, if the driver and vehicle are recovered, and intimation to that shall be given to Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who shall list this matter before appropriate Bench after seeking permission. Both officers are directed to appears on the next date. Copy of this order be handed to the officers concerned.” “25.08.2016 As a matter of last chance, we give liberty to the Investigation Officer, who is personally present, to trace out the driver and the vehicle and ensure his presence on the next date. Let the matter come up on board again on 19th September, 2016 on which date the Investigation Officer shall remain present to apprise this Court about latest developments in this case.” “19.09.2016 Both the Investigating Officers are present. Sri J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since, in spite of best efforts for months together and taking recourse to entire possible methods, neither the driver nor the vehicle could be traced out, now it would not be possible to trace to the vehicle as well as the driver after a gap of seven years. The driver of the vehicle is the son of the petitioner and he has family consisting of wife and two children. In such view of the matter, though we cannot order closure of the case, but certainly consider the same for grant of compensation to the family of the victim-driver. Let the matter come up on board again on 27th September, 2016. Learned Advocate General is requested to obtain appropriate instruction and suggest this Court regarding appropriate quantum of compensation to be awarded to be family of the victim. In the meantime, if the missing person as well as the vehicle is traced out, the Investigating Officers are directed to ensure his presence before this Court, otherwise they need not appear. Learned Advocate General is requested to obtain appropriate instruction and suggest this Court regarding appropriate quantum of compensation to be awarded to be family of the victim. In the meantime, if the missing person as well as the vehicle is traced out, the Investigating Officers are directed to ensure his presence before this Court, otherwise they need not appear. A free copy of this order be made available to learned Additional Government Advocate for compliance.” 11.Ultimately the writ petition was finally heard on the quantum of compensation and the judgment was reserved, which is being delivered now. 12.In the background as above, that we have heard Sri Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri J.Katikia, learned advocate, for the respondents and have vetted through the writ petition, counter affidavits and various Misc. Applications. 13.Undeniable is the fact that it is unbeknown to anybody where the son of the petitioner namely Krushna Chandra Pradhan @ Kalia, is ? His whereabouts are not traceable so much so that his pickup van also dissipated and nobody knows where. Sluggishness of investigation has miserably failed to surface and inform as to what happened to both. What emerges is that because of inaction on the part of the investigating agency the petitioner has lost his son since more than seven years and at last respondents agreed to pay compensation. 14.Law relating to awarding of compensation to the victim’s family has assumed much wider scope and by enacting Victim’s Compensation Scheme it has been given a rejuvenated nascent impetus. Apex Court in Malay Kumar Ganguli versus Sukumar Mukherjee: (2009) 9 SCC 221 , Balaram Prasad Versus Kunal Saha: (2014) 1 SCC 384 , Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Versus Prashant S.Dhananka: (2009) 6 SCC 1 has dealt with question of compensation in medical negligence. This Court has considered the same question in Duleswar Barik versus State of Orissa: 2015 (1) ILR –Cut-202, and many other decisions. It can no longer be disputed that State can be directed to award compensation for violation of Fundamental Right of a victim. In the present case life has been shortened. Right to life of the entire family of victim had diminished. In Rudul Shah Versus State of Bihar: AIR 1983 SC 1086 it has been held by the apex Court as under:- “8. In the present case life has been shortened. Right to life of the entire family of victim had diminished. In Rudul Shah Versus State of Bihar: AIR 1983 SC 1086 it has been held by the apex Court as under:- “8. That takes us to the question as to how the grave injustice which has been perpetrated upon 21 the petitioner can be rectified, in so far as it lies within out power to do in the exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. That Article confers power on the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III. is “guaranteed”, that is to say, the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is itself a fundamental right” 9. It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of Courts, Civil and Criminal. A money claim has therefore to be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it . But the important question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass and order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The instant case is illustrative of such cases. The petitioner was detained illegally in the prison for over fourteen years after his acquittal in a full-dressed trial. He filed a Habeas Corpus petition in this Court for his release from illegal detention. He obtained that relief, our finding being that his detention in the prison after his acquittal was wholly unjustified. He contends that he is entitled to be compensated for his illegal detention and that we ought to pass appropriate order for the payment of compensation in this Habeas Corpus petition itself. 10. We cannot resist this argument. He obtained that relief, our finding being that his detention in the prison after his acquittal was wholly unjustified. He contends that he is entitled to be compensated for his illegal detention and that we ought to pass appropriate order for the payment of compensation in this Habeas Corpus petition itself. 10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective answer to it save the stale and sterile objection that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages from the State 22 Government. Happily, the State’s Counsel has not raised that objection. The petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense that a civil Court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no doubt that if the petitioner filed a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not possible to predicate in the absence of evidence, the precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders to release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too wellknown to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. If civilization is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too wellknown to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner’s rights. It may have recourse against those officers. 11. Taking into consideration that great harm done to the petitioner by the Government of Bihar, we are of the opinion that, as an interim measure, the State must pay to the petitioner a further sum of 23 Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty-thousand) in addition to the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) already paid by it. The amount shall be paid within two weeks from today. The Government of Bihar agrees to make the payment though, we must clarify, our order is not based on their consent. 12. This order will not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials. The order of compensation passed by us is, as we said above, in the nature of a palliative. We cannot leave the petitioner penniless until the end of his suit, the many appeals and the execution proceedings. A fulldressed debate on the nice points of fact and law which takes place leisurely in compensation suits will have to await the filing of such a suit by the poor Rudul Sah. The Leviathan will have liberty to raise those points in that suit. Until then, we hope, there will be no more Rudul Sahs in Bihar or elsewhere.” 15.The same principle finds it’s approval in many other decisions such as:- This principle has been consistently followed in the subsequently line of cases i.e. Sebastian M. Hogary v. Union of India 1984 Cri LJ 830; Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J&K and Ors. 1986 CriLJ 192; People’ Union For Democratic Rights and Anr. V. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters and Anr. (1989) 4 SCC 730 ; State of Maharashtra and Ors. V. Ravikant S. Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373 ; Peoples’ Union For Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar and ors. 1987 CriLJ 528; Saheli, A Women’s Resources center and Ors. V. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 513 ; Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of 24 U.P. and Ors. V. Ravikant S. Patil (1991) 2 SCC 373 ; Peoples’ Union For Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar and ors. 1987 CriLJ 528; Saheli, A Women’s Resources center and Ors. V. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 513 ; Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of 24 U.P. and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 117 ; P. Rathinam v. Union of India and Ors. In re Death of Sawindra Singh Grover AIR 1994 SC 1844 ; Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1995 CriLJ 3235; D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. 1997 CriLJ 743; Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. V. Chandrima Das (Mrs. ) and Ors. 2000 CriLJ 1473. 16.Recently apex Court has again considered the same aspect in Sanjay Gupta versus State of U.P. (2015) 5 SCC 283 in the following terms:- In Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa and others [2], J.S. Verma, J. (as his Lordship then was) speaking for himself and Venkatachala, J., after referring to various authorities, opined thus:- “17. It follows 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 [pic] 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. This is what was indicated in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [3] and is the basis of the subsequent decisions in which compensation was awarded under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention of fundamental rights. 18. A useful discussion in this topic which brings out the distinction between the remedy in public law based on strict liability for violation of a fundamental right enabling award of compensation, to which the defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable, and the private law remedy, wherein vicarious liability of the State in tort may arise, is to be found in Ratanlal & Dhirjlal’s Law of Torts, 22nd Edition, 1992, by Justice G.P. Singh, at pages 44 to 48. 16. Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to the authority in Union Carbide Corpn. V. Union of India [4] and observed:- “We respectfully concur with the view that the Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to this Court by Article 32, which itself is a fundamental right, imposes a constitutional obligation on this Curt to forge such new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, [pic] which enable the award of monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available. The power available to this Court under Article 142 is also an enabling provision in this behalf. The contrary view would not merely render the Court powerless and the constitutional guarantee a mirage, but may, in certain situations, be an incentive to extinguish life, if for the extreme contravention the Court is powerless to grant any relief against the State, except by punishment of the wrongdoer for the resulting offence, and recovery of damages under private law, by the ordinary process. If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law, is to be real, the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that which is appropriate in the facts of each case. If the guarantee that deprivation of life and personal liberty cannot be made except in accordance with law, is to be real, the enforcement of the right in case of every contravention must also be possible in the constitutional scheme, the mode of redress being that which is appropriate in the facts of each case. This remedy in public law has to be more 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.” 17. Dr. Anand, J. (as his Lordship then was) in his concurring opinion has observed that:- “34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize 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. Therefore, when the Court moulds the relief by granting “compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which was failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’[pic] awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.” 18. In Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and others [5], this Court while dealing with an appeal arising out of a public interest litigation before the High Court pertaining to the grant of damages by the railways after referring to earlier decisions came to hold as follows: - “Running of the Railways is a commercial activity. Establishing the Yatri Niwas at various railway stations to provide lodging and boarding [pic] facilities to passengers on payment of charges is a part of the commercial activity of the Union of India and this activity cannot be equated with the exercise of sovereign power. The employees of the Union of India who are deputed to run the Railways and to manage the establishment, including the railway stations and the Yatri Niwas, are essential components of the government machinery which carries on the commercial activity. If any of such employees commits and act of tort, the Union Government, of which they are the employees, can, subject to other legal requirements being satisfied, be held vicariously liable in damages to the person wronged by those employees.” 19. In Sube Singh V. State of Haryana and others [6], while dealing with the grant of compensation in a public law remedy, the Court ruled thus:- “It is thus now well settled that the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of public [pic] law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil Court, in the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal Court ordering compensation under Section 357 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 20. In Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and another [7], the Court reiterated the view that the power and jurisdiction of this Court and the High Courts to grant monetary compensation in respect of petitioners under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are violated are well-established. 21. In Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [8] while dealing with the mental torture of the petitioner – an Ayurvedic doctor in custody, the Court after referring to the earlier judgments including in Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. [9] ruled: “35. We have referred to these paragraphs to understand how with the efflux of time, the concept of mental torture has been understood throughout the world, regard being had to the essential conception of human dignity. 36. From the aforesaid discussion, there is no shadow of doubt that any treatment meted out to an accused while he is in custody which causes humiliation and mental trauma corrodes the concept of human dignity. The majesty of law protests the dignity of a citizen in a society governed by law. It cannot be forgotten that the welfare State is governed by the rule of law which has paramountcy. It has been said by Edward Biggon “the laws of a nation form the most instructive portion of its history”. The Constitution as the organic law of the land has unfolded itself in a manifold manner like a living organism in the various decisions of the Court about the rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When citizenry rights are sometimes dashed against and pushed back by the members of City Halls, there has to be a rebound and when the rebound takes place, Article 21 of the Constitution springs up to action as a protector. When citizenry rights are sometimes dashed against and pushed back by the members of City Halls, there has to be a rebound and when the rebound takes place, Article 21 of the Constitution springs up to action as a protector. That is why, an investigator [pic] of a crime is required to possess the qualities of patience and perseverance as has been stated in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani[10]. Thereafter placing reliance on Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin (supra), Sube Singh (supra) and Hardeep Singh (supra), the Court granted a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) as compensation.” 17.With exemplars as above when we advert to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner and his family we have to consider that the respondent State has miserably failed to protect life of its citizen, it has failed to act with promptness and alacrity to trace out the missing person and thereby denying him value of his life. Because of its slackness, it had trampled life and liberty of the petitioner and other family members of the victim. It had failed to secure life and liberty of the entire family and thereby had breached substantially Article 21 qua the entire family. The protective wall of Rule of Law, which should be ubiquitous to all citizenry was transgressed by perpetrators of crime and State had failed to act against them. All these aspects including miseries faced by the victim, as well as by his parents, diminishing of happiness in life for losing the only son, tormentation to be faced by them in further each second and every moment and enormous mental agony to be suffered by them have to be counted while determining the quantum of compensation to be awarded. For the petitioner, life is worse than death. Cost of cheerfulness of their lives is unredeemable. Considering all the possible aspects conceived by our cognitive faculties, this certainly in such a fact situation is woefully deficient and incomplete, that we consider it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs. Ten (10) Lacs to the victim’s family and to the petitioner. 18. The writ petition is disposed of by mandatorily directing respondent no. 1, State of Orissa, through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Home , Orissa Government, to pay a compensation of Rs. Ten lacs (Rs. Ten (10) Lacs to the victim’s family and to the petitioner. 18. The writ petition is disposed of by mandatorily directing respondent no. 1, State of Orissa, through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Home , Orissa Government, to pay a compensation of Rs. Ten lacs (Rs. 10 lacs) to the victim’s family including the petitioner within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to get it realized through proper remedy in this Court by taking recourse to law. 19. Writ Petition disposed of as above. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. K. R. MOHAPATRA, J.I agree. Petition disposed of.