JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. All the above writ petition shall stand decided by this common order being identical and arising out of common order. 2. The above-mentioned writ petitions are filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 29.1.2011 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, District Legal Service Authority, Udaipur in Case No. 37/2008 P.L.A. Amrit Bai and Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, vide which the claim of the respondents holding the petitioner-State liable for compensation was allowed. 3. The facts in short as mentioned in the writ petition itself by the State of Rajasthan are that in District Udaipur, there is a dam known as Som-Kamla Amba Dam. This dam is under the supervision and control of the Irrigation Department of State of Rajasthan. In the middle of back waters of this dam, there is a temple of Sangameshwar Mahadev. On 12.06.2006, at around 12.00 PM, the petitioners boarded a boat belonging to Gautam Meena for the purpose of worshipping temple of Sangameshwar Mahadev. The boat contained passengers far in excess of its loading capacity. Further, the said boat was not having any fitness certificate from the transport department of the State of Rajasthan nor operation of boat in the above-mentioned area of Som-Kamla Amba Dam was authorised by the State Government. Hence, on account of excess load carried in the boat, water filled up in the boat and when it reached in the middle of river and as a result thereof, the boat sank. Due to sinking of boat as many as 7 persons died by drowning. The dependents of persons expired in the above-mentioned accident moved application under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1987). Accordingly, cases were registered by the permanent Lok Adalat, District Legal Service Authority, Udaipur. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the petitioner-State. Efforts were made for settlement of the matter by reconciliation. However, it did not yield any result. Therefore, the matter was taken up for adjudication by the permanent Lok Adalat while exercising its power under Section 22 A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated 29.1.2011 allowed claim of the claimants and while holding the petitioners/defendants liable for compensation, passed an order granting compensation. 4. Therefore, the matter was taken up for adjudication by the permanent Lok Adalat while exercising its power under Section 22 A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated 29.1.2011 allowed claim of the claimants and while holding the petitioners/defendants liable for compensation, passed an order granting compensation. 4. Aggrieved with the order of compensation passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, the MIGHTY State of Rajasthan has filed the present writ petitions against the most nominal and less than reasonable compensation awarded to the claimants of the deceased on the most unsustainable grounds; 1. The permanent Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter under Section 22A of the Act of 1987. 2. The State was in no way responsible for the act committed by the owner of the boat and the Lok Adalat has committed an error in holding the petitioner responsible for the accident. 3. There was no evidence as to what was the income of the deceased and despite this, the Permanent Lok Adalat without any evidence and just by doing guess work has assumed monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 3000 per month. It is evident to note here that for all the deceased in the accident whose age was all different ranging from 23 years to 70 years, same monthly income of Rs. 3000 has been presumed which shows causal approach on the part of Permanent Lok Adalat and further shows non application of mind. 5. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, it is stated that the objections raised by the petitioners against the award of permanent Lok Adalat dated 29.01.2011 in case No. 37/2008 are not enable in the eye of law. The award of permanent Lok Adalat dated 29.1.2011 deserves to be upheld as the same has been passed after following the provisions of the legal services authority Act, 1987. It is submitted that the petitioners in the present writ petition have wrongly stated that the provisions of Section 20 are applicable in this case. 6. Heard. 7. Taking up the first argument that Lok Adalat could not have passed the order and that it was passed without hearing, it may be noticed that in fact in the present case, Chapter VI A which deals with establishment and cognizance by Permanent Lok Adalat are attracted. 6. Heard. 7. Taking up the first argument that Lok Adalat could not have passed the order and that it was passed without hearing, it may be noticed that in fact in the present case, Chapter VI A which deals with establishment and cognizance by Permanent Lok Adalat are attracted. Section 22A (b) states that public utility service means- (i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road and water; or (ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or (iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; or (iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or (v) service in hospital or dispensary; or (vi) insurance service. 8. Section 22B of the Act of 1987 states that every state authority shall establish Permanent Lok Adalat at such places and for exercising such jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Section 22 C of the Act of 1987 clearly states that the Permanent Lok Adalat on receiving an application shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written statement. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings would be conducted and in case parties reach an agreement the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award. However, where the parties fail to reach an agreement under sub Section 7 of Section 22 C, the Permanent Lok Adalat, if the disputes does not relate to any offence, decide the issue. 9. In the present case, the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur before passing the award extended adequate opportunity of defence to the present petitioners i.e. respondents before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur. It is admitted in the writ petition itself that the State had filed its reply and all efforts to arrive at compromise had failed. The Permanent Lok Adalat on failing to settle the disputes by way of agreement or compromise as per the powers conferred upon it under Section 22(c) (8) has decided the dispute on merits. The award of Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur is therefore neither illegal nor without jurisdiction. In fact the award has been passed after hearing and following the procedure provided under the Act of 1987. 10. The award of Permanent Lok Adalat, Udaipur is therefore neither illegal nor without jurisdiction. In fact the award has been passed after hearing and following the procedure provided under the Act of 1987. 10. With respect to second objection that the State cannot be made liable to pay compensation as the boat carrying passengers did not have the fitness certificate from the transport department, on the face of it, makes the State liable. It is the own case of the petitioner-State that the tragedy occurred due to sinking of the boat which was carrying passengers in a dam under the supervision and control of the Irrigation Department of the State of Rajasthan. This fact is admitted in para 2 of the writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioner-State itself that transport department is authorised to issue fitness certificate to the boat for operation in the Som-Kamla Amba Dam. Thus, the stand of the State of Rajasthan and their admission that operating of the motor boats in the dam was under the direct supervision and control of the Irrigation Department and only those boats can ply who have the licence of the Transport Department under the provisions of Rajasthan Regulation of Boating Act, 1956 pins down the responsibility of the State to regulate the plying of motor boats and ensure that only boats who have the licence and fulfil the conditions of safety carry the innocent passengers. Para 6 of the writ petition is reproduced below: "Such licence and fitness certificate are issued by Transport Department only for those boats which qualify under the relevant law and meet the standards prescribed for this purpose. Further, such license and fitness certificate were issued only after no objection certificate being obtained from the owner of the concerned water body and after verifying that it will be used on hire and reward basis in that particular water body. The Transport Department can be held accountable for any incidents only for those motor boats which have obtained license/fitness certificate and that too in those water bodies where boating is permitted." 11. Not only this, the State of Rajasthan has also admitted that the said accident had occurred because the boat contained passengers far in excess of its loading capacity and the boat did not have the fitness certificate and had no permission to operate in Som-Kamla Amba Dam. Not only this, the State of Rajasthan has also admitted that the said accident had occurred because the boat contained passengers far in excess of its loading capacity and the boat did not have the fitness certificate and had no permission to operate in Som-Kamla Amba Dam. The very stand and admission by the State of Rajasthan themselves makes them liable, inasmuch as, it is the duty of the petitioner-State to see that no unauthorised boats operate or carry passengers in the dam. It is not for the passengers to check whether the boat operating in the dam has a valid licence and a fitness certificate before boarding the said boat. It is the duty of the State and the instrumentalities of the State and the Officers of the concerned department to keep a watch and check and maintain a check-post to ensure that no boat operates illegally. The citizens of this Country pay tax and in return, the Government has an obligation towards the citizens to provide them facilities which include safe transport. In the present case, the State has miserably failed to discharge their duty. It is admitted that the boats are provided in the dam for carrying passengers. If so, there is nothing to show that backup of safety measures including rescue team and check post exist to ensure help in case of such an emergency. In case, expert help and security as per norms was provided, the State would have been able to avert the tragedy. The State has failed to stop the operation of unauthorised boats in the area. There is absolutely no doubt about the responsibility and liability of the State to ensure the safety of the respondents in the present case. It was the duty of the State that no unauthorised boats ply in the dam and that all those who ply the boats have a fitness certificate. It is also the duty of the State to ensure that there were check-post in the area to watch out for unauthorised boats and at the same time cancel the licence of all those who are overloading their boats. 12. It is also the duty of the State to ensure that there were check-post in the area to watch out for unauthorised boats and at the same time cancel the licence of all those who are overloading their boats. 12. The third argument that no evidence with respect to the income was taken into consideration while granting the compensation, may be a good argument in another case but in the present case, it is totally misconceived and does not behave the State to raise this argument. 13. It is admitted by the petitioner-State in the petition itself that Rs. 3000/- was taken as the assumed monthly income of each deceased. Rs. 3000/- per month means Rs. 100/- per day which is less than even the minimum of the daily wage given to a labourer and not sufficient for any individual to even make both ends meet. In fact this Court wonders as to why the respondents-claimants have not filed any counter claim for enhancement. 14. The argument of the learned counsel for the State is that the owner of the boat should be made liable. This Court may notice that the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 1994 SC 2663 drew a distinction between the sovereign and non sovereign functions of the State and held as under:- "No legal or political system today can place the State above "Law" as it is unjust and unfair for a citizen to be deprived of his property illegally when negligent act by the officers of the State without any remedy. From sincerity, efficiency and dignity of the State as a juristic person, propounded in the nineteenth century as sound sociological basis for State immunity, the circle has gone round and the emphasis is now more on liberty, equality and the rule of law. The modern social thinking of progressive societies and the judicial approach is to do away with archaic State protection and place the State or the Government on a par with any other juristic legal entity. Any watertight compartmentalization of the functions of the State as "sovereign and non-sovereign" or "governmental and non-governmental" is not sound. It is contrary to modern jurisprudential thinking. The need of the State to have extraordinary powers cannot be doubted. Any watertight compartmentalization of the functions of the State as "sovereign and non-sovereign" or "governmental and non-governmental" is not sound. It is contrary to modern jurisprudential thinking. The need of the State to have extraordinary powers cannot be doubted. But with the conceptual change of statutory power being statutory duty for the sake of the society and the people, the claim of a common man or ordinary citizen cannot be thrown out, merely because it was done by an Officer of the State even though it was against law and negligent. Needs of the State; duty of its officials and right of the citizens are required to be reconciled, so that the rule of law in a Welfare State is not shaken." The Court further held: "The determination of vicarious liability of the State being linked with the negligence of his officers, if they can be sued personally for which there is no dearth of authority and law of misfeasance in discharge of public duty having marched ahead, there is no rationale for the proposition that even if the officer is liable, the State cannot be sued." 15. In the present case, the State was aware that the boats were being used by 100 of the passengers everyday to go to the temple situated in the back water of the Som-Kamla Amba Dam. It was the duty of the State to provide safe and proper transport to the public in the aforesaid dam. 16. The observations in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Others, decided on 13.10.2011 would be relevant which reads thus:- "13. This Court in Union of India v. Prabhakaran (2008) (9) SCC 527, extended the principle to cover public utilities like the railways, electricity distribution companies, public corporations and local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. In Prabhakaran (supra) a woman fell on a railway track and was fatally run over and her husband demanded compensation. Railways argued that she was negligent as she tried to board a moving train. In Prabhakaran (supra) a woman fell on a railway track and was fatally run over and her husband demanded compensation. Railways argued that she was negligent as she tried to board a moving train. Rejecting the plea of the Railways, this Court held that her "contributory negligence" should not be considered in such untoward incidents - the railways has "strict liability." A strict liability in torts, private or constitutional do not call for a finding of intent or negligence. In such a case highest degree of care is expected from private and public bodies especially when the conduct causes physical injury or harm to persons. The question as to whether the law imposes a strict liability on the state and its officials primarily depends upon the purpose and object of the legislation as well. When activities are hazardous and if they are inherently dangerous the statute expects highest degree of care and if someone is injured because of such activities, the State and its officials are liable even if they could establish that there was no negligence and that it was not intentional. Public safety legislations generally falls in that category of breach of statutory duty by a public authority. To decide whether the breach is actionable, the Court must generally look at the statute and its provisions and determine whether legislature in its wisdom intended to give rise to a cause of action in damages and whether the claimant is intended to be protected. 14. But, in a case, where life and personal liberty have been violated the absence of any statutory provision for compensation in the Statute is of no consequence. Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the most sacred right preserved and protected under the Constitution, violation of which is always actionable and there is no necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right. Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be read into all public safety statutes, since the prime object of public safety legislation is to protect the individual and to compensate him for the loss suffered. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high, compared to the statutory powers and supervision expected from officers functioning under the statutes like Companies Act, Cooperative Societies Act and such similar legislations. Duty of care expected from State or its officials functioning under the public safety legislation is, therefore, very high, compared to the statutory powers and supervision expected from officers functioning under the statutes like Companies Act, Cooperative Societies Act and such similar legislations. When we look at the various provisions of the Cinematographic Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder, the Delhi Building Regulations and the Electricity Laws the duty of care on officials was high and liabilities strict." 17. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam V. Murjani and Others, (Civil Appeal No. 3594-3611 of 2010) while placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Others, (supra) upholding the liability of the Corporation, by reiterating that not only Constitutional Courts have to, in suitable cases, uphold claims arising out of loss of life or liberty on account of violation of statutory duties of public authorities but claims of citizens against public bodies have to be upheld and compensation awarded in Tort and held as under:- "19. In view of above discussion, while upholding the liability of the Corporation, we reiterate that not only Constitutional Courts have to, in suitable cases, uphold claims arising out of loss of life or liberty on account of violation of statutory duties of public authorities, in private law remedies, just and fair claims of citizens against public bodies have to be upheld and compensation awarded in Tort. Where activity of a public body is hazardous, highest degree of care is expected and breach of such duty is actionable. This obligation is also referable to Article 21. We reiterate the need for a comprehensive legislation dealing with tortious liability of the State and its instrumentalities in such cases for 13 Page 14 Civil Appeal No. 3594-3611/2010 certainty on the subject. We request the Law Commission to look into the matter and take such steps as may be found necessary." 18. From the discussion above, it is evident that the State has not only ignored but has also not performed its duty to supervise the boating activities specially when it is admitted that the area where they operate was directly under the supervision of the Irrigation Department and that the boats are required to operate only in case they have the fitness certificate and licence. Public safety legislation is to protect the citizens and compensate them for the loss. Ample opportunity was granted by the Lok Adalat to settle the dispute amicably. The Lok Adalat was forced to finally pass the award under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The compensation was awarded taking into account the income @ Rs. 3000/- per month which was Rs. 100 per day. In spite of the same, the State of Rajasthan has gone ahead and filed these writ petitions challenging the order granting most nominal and less than reasonable compensation to the dependents of the deceased forcing them to spend on the litigation for defending their cases before this Court. 19. In these circumstances, this Court has no choice but to dismiss the present writ petitions being devoid of merit with payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost in each of the writ petition which shall be equally distributed among all the claimants of that particular writ petition. The amount ordered by the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as cost be disbursed within four weeks. Failing which, 9% interest shall be paid for the delayed payment from the date it was liable to be paid till it is finally paid.