JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed inter-alia seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction compelling respondents 1 and 4, to conduct a proper, serious and expeditious investigation in the crime registered pursuant to the directions of this Court in OP No. 10451/2002, by directing the investigations to be done by the senior most officer under the 4th respondent and if necessary by invoking other agencies and to file final report as expeditiously as possible. (b) declare that respondents 1 and 2 are bound to compensate the petitioner forthwith for failure in proper discharge of their duties and direct respondents 1 and 2 to disburse to the petitioner, Indian rupees equalling to the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- Dirham. (c) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to redress the grievance of the petitioner as directed in Ext.P10 judgment. (d) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the apprehend the accused and seize the decamped money or the assets of the culprit to make good the loss of the petitioner.” 2. The short facts involved in the petition would disclose that petitioner's son Sunil Oommen while working with M/s. Bartawi General Contracting Company at Dubai, United Arab Emirates met with a motor accident and died on account of the injuries suffered by him. According to the petitioner, the Preliminary Court of Dubai in Criminal Petition No. 279/1999 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- Dirhams which is equivalent to Rs. 17,79,000/- as on 1999, to the legal heirs of Sri. Sunil Oommen. Having come to know about the award, petitioner approached the Indian Consulate in Dubai requesting for taking necessary action to obtain the amount. He addressed a letter dated 29.10.1999, Ext.P1 to the Indian Consulate. The Company M/s. Bartawi General Contracting Company had also requested the petitioner to furnish a legal heirship certificate in order to clear the dues. The 2nd respondent by letter dated 16.12.1999 (Ext.P2) called upon the petitioner to provide certain documents. For easy reference, the said letter itself is extracted herein:- “No. DUBA/LAB/437/55/99 Date 16.12.1999 To, Shri K.O. Oommen, Koickal Hosue, Mulakada PO, Kottayam Dt. Kerala, Pin 686509. The 2nd respondent by letter dated 16.12.1999 (Ext.P2) called upon the petitioner to provide certain documents. For easy reference, the said letter itself is extracted herein:- “No. DUBA/LAB/437/55/99 Date 16.12.1999 To, Shri K.O. Oommen, Koickal Hosue, Mulakada PO, Kottayam Dt. Kerala, Pin 686509. Sub: Death compensation in respect of Late Sunil Oommen Dear Sir, In order to claim death compensation in respect of your deceased son from the concerned authorities in UAE, you are requested to send us the following documents in original. (i) A legal Heir Certificate (to be obtained from a court) giving full name of all the legal heirs with their surnames and father's/husband's name, age and relationship to the legal heir of the deceased. The share of all the legal heirs should also be indicated in the certificate. (ii) A Power of Attorney in favour of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, from all the legal heirs. The Legal Heir Certificate as well as the Power of Attorney should be translated into Arabic and got attested by the following authorities:- (a) District Magistrate/1st Class Magistrate of your area. (b) Home Department of your State Government. (c) Consular Section, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, New Delhi. (d) Embassy of UAE, New Delhi. Yours faithfully, K.P. RAM Consul (Labour).” 3. According to the petitioner, he had forwarded certain documents by letter dated 21.3.2000 which was replied by the Consulate General of India as per letter dated 27.3.2000 returning the documents for want of necessary particulars, wherein it is indicated that the documents which are not attested by the authorities are not acceptable to local court and therefore the documents should be properly attested by the authorities mentioned therein. Petitioner therefore obtained all the documents, got them attested and the same was sent to the Consulate under cover of Ext.P4 letter dated 7.8.2001. By another letter dated 21.11.2001, (Ext.P7) petitioner was informed that the documents forwarded by him after attestation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UAE were submitted to the Dubai Court on 15.10.2001 and they have incurred an amount of 400 dirhams towards attestation of the documents by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UAE. Further, petitioner was informed that the Consulate had received a letter from Dubai Court (copy enclosed) informing that diya money has been disbursed to Mr. Further, petitioner was informed that the Consulate had received a letter from Dubai Court (copy enclosed) informing that diya money has been disbursed to Mr. Jaswinder Singh on the basis of a power of attorney earlier submitted in the Court, a copy of which was also enclosed. Petitioner addressed another letter dated 20.2.2002 to the Consulate stating that he has not received any such amount. He suspected forgery of a false power of attorney. Petitioner also enclosed the nature of fraud played for appropriating the amount. It is stated that the power of attorney was attested by a notary by name Vijay Pal with Delhi Registration No. 1065/97 and a photocopy sent from the Consulate office was attested by a person by name Surendra Kumar, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. A seal of the embassy of UAE is also seen on the back of the forged document. The forged power of attorney is produced as Ext.P10. It is contended that fraud had been played on him and money was taken from Dubai Court by forging documents. It is further contended that the fraud cannot take place without the knowledge of the 2nd respondent in so far as the legal heirship certificate is mandatory for receiving compensation money which the petitioner has sent to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the same had been obtained by the person who has committed forgery from the Consulate Office. Secondly, possession of the legal heirship certificate is also required with all necessary attestation which has been sent by the petitioner to the Consulate. 4. Petitioner therefore filed OP No. 10451/2002 before this Court. By order dated 21.2.2005, this Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation in the matter. The original petition was disposed of by Judgment dated 24.11.2006 directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Petitioner further submits that though the CBI Delhi unit has taken up the investigation pursuant to the directions of this Court and 21 documents were collected from the petitioner, no serious action was taken to track down the culprit. It is submitted that investigation is going only at a snail pace and therefore seeking the reliefs aforesaid, the writ petition is filed. 5. During hearing, this Court had requested the standing counsel for CBI to ascertain the present position of the investigation. It is submitted that investigation is going only at a snail pace and therefore seeking the reliefs aforesaid, the writ petition is filed. 5. During hearing, this Court had requested the standing counsel for CBI to ascertain the present position of the investigation. In a statement filed by the counsel for CBI on 11.7.2016, it is stated that charge-sheet into the crime was filed on 18.12.2009 against the accused Sri. Jaswinder Singh Bangar S/o Sri. Swaran Singh for having committed offences under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The charge-sheet has been taken cognizance and is pending as CC No. 268/2009 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that the accused is still absconding and steps have been initiated against the accused to procure his presence in Court and complete the trial. Steps taken against the accused including steps under Sections 82, 83 Cr.PC have been exhausted and the case is converted as LP No. 11/2012 on 10.9.2012 and non-bailable warrant is being issued periodically. It is now submitted that the prosecuting agency has nothing else to do in the matter other than executing the non-bailable warrant which is issued periodically in the LP proceedings. In the final report, the CBI had given a brief facts of the case. In the charge-sheet it is stated that the power of attorney on the basis of which the accused had collected the amount from Dubai Court was executed in Delhi. The petitioner who is alleged to have executed it has no knowledge about it. He never visited Delhi in his life and he does not know any person by name Jaswinder Singh Bangar. He had not authorized any other person other than the Consulate General of India in whose favour he executed power of attorney dated 17.7.2001. The investigation conducted by CBI revealed that passport was issued in favour of Jaswinder Singh Bangar on 26.9.2000 and he is a permanent resident of Hosiarpur (Punjab). He had collected Rs. 1,50,000/- dirhams from Dubai Court dishonestly and fraudulently on the basis of a forged power of attorney purportedly issued by the petitioner. The accused was avoiding the arrest and he even filed Crl. M.C. before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for anticipatory bail which was dismissed as per order dated 30.5.2005. He had collected Rs. 1,50,000/- dirhams from Dubai Court dishonestly and fraudulently on the basis of a forged power of attorney purportedly issued by the petitioner. The accused was avoiding the arrest and he even filed Crl. M.C. before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for anticipatory bail which was dismissed as per order dated 30.5.2005. He moved the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi for anticipatory bail which also came to be dismissed on 22.7.2005. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam had issued non bailable warrant of arrest against the accused on 2.8.2005, but the warrant could not be executed. Proceedings were taken under Section 82 Cr.PC. Further, during investigation, Letter Rogatory was issued for conducting investigation in UAE. The UAE authorities had executed Letter Rogatory and send its execution report through diplomatic channels. It was found that the authenticated copy of death certificate has been collected from Rashid Hospital, Dubai where Sri. Sunil Oommen died on 5.2.1999. An application was filed by the accused to the Judge (Islamic) Law Court, Dubai for early disbursement of the compensation. Order was passed by the Dubai Court for handing over compensation amount to the accused. The authorities have recorded the statement of Ali Ahmed Ali of the Dubai Court who proved the procedure for payment. He categorically stated that the cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- dirhams was handed over to the accused. They have also handed over authenticated copy of forged power of attorney and copy of succession certificate. Evidence was collected stating that the accused had attended the court proceedings and collected the death compensation amount of deceased Sunil Oommen. It is further established that the accused was given cheque for Rs. 1,50,000 dirhams drawn on Dubai National Bank favouring father of the deceased and on the strength of the power of attorney, accused collected the death compensation amount. The death compensation amount was deposited in Dubai Court by the Insurance Company Adamjee. Interpol has also issued red corner notice against the accused on 12.5.2006. It is also stated that wide publicity had been given relating to the role played by the accused in this case and a reward of Rs. 1 lakh was also declared by CBI to the person who gives information. Interpol has also issued red corner notice against the accused on 12.5.2006. It is also stated that wide publicity had been given relating to the role played by the accused in this case and a reward of Rs. 1 lakh was also declared by CBI to the person who gives information. It is stated that he is the only person who had collected the death compensation amount from the Dubai Court and all efforts are being taken to apprehend the accused. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the Consulate was unaware of the production of documents by Jaswinder Singh Bangar until the information from the Court was received. The amount was disbursed on 26.2.2001 much before the date on which documents were sent by the petitioner to the Consulate. It is further contended that there is no evidence that the legal heirship certificate forwarded by the petitioner to the Consulate came into the hands of the culprits who used them to get the compensation amount. According to the respondents, it is not clear as to how the accused Mr. Bangar managed to get hold of the details of the legal heirs of the deceased. 7. The seal mentioned in the petition is the seal of UAE Embassy in New Delhi and not that of the Consulate General of India in Dubai. It is further stated that the Consulate through its sustained efforts was able to secure release of dues amounting to 34,536 dirhams which was with the employer and the said amount was paid to the petitioner on 20.5.2009. They have also produced a copy of the passport and visa of Mr. Bangar. They denied the liability to pay any compensation at all. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appropriate directions are to be issued to ensure that the accused is apprehended at the earliest. Though a charge-sheet had been filed, so far, the accused has not been apprehended in the case, which itself amounts to negligence. Further, it is contended that there is no possibility for the petitioner to recover the amount from the Dubai Court. Though a charge-sheet had been filed, so far, the accused has not been apprehended in the case, which itself amounts to negligence. Further, it is contended that there is no possibility for the petitioner to recover the amount from the Dubai Court. A wrong payment made by the Dubai Court to a fraudulent person had created a situation in which the legal heirs of a deceased happened to be deprived of the compensation amount deposited by the insurance company. It is stated that when the petitioner approached the Consulate for help as early as on 29.10.1999, it was for the Consulate to take immediate action to ensure that the compensation amount is retained in the Dubai Court and if appropriate steps had been taken by the Consulate in time, there would have been no occasion for a fraudulent person to have indulged in the matter and obtained the compensation amount. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Government of India is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by him on account of their negligent attitude in the matter. Further, the very fact that the accused could not be apprehended after several years of investigation itself would amount to negligence. Even steps taken under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.PC did not yield any result. When a fraud is committed against a citizen of India on account of negligence of the officials of Consulate and that too by defrauding a Court in Dubai, the Government of India is answerable and liable to compensate the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that fraud is not committed at the instance of the officers of the Consulate. The Consulate had no role at all in the matter relating to the fraud being committed by a third party. It is also contended that all the documents after attestation by the competent authorities were received by the Consulate only under cover of letter dated 7.8.2001 whereas the investigation revealed that the amount was collected from the Dubai Court on 26.2.2001 and the documents reached the Consulate only under cover of letter dated 7.8.2001. It is also contended that all the documents after attestation by the competent authorities were received by the Consulate only under cover of letter dated 7.8.2001 whereas the investigation revealed that the amount was collected from the Dubai Court on 26.2.2001 and the documents reached the Consulate only under cover of letter dated 7.8.2001. The learned counsel for CBI submitted that they have taken all necessary steps in the matter and during investigation it was found that the accused had collected the amount by committing fraud and by forging a power of attorney and other documents. As far as the investigation is concerned, there is nothing else to be done in the matter as far as CBI is concerned. They have already completed the investigation. Charge-sheet had been filed before the Court and the matter is pending for want of apprehending the accused. All necessary steps had already been taken by the CBI in the matter including a red alert notice to be issued through interpol. 11. The only question therefore to be considered in the present lis is whether any direction can be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to compensate the petitioner by invoking the public law remedy. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that public law remedy can be invoked by this Court if a person has suffered loss on account of any breach of contract, a wilful act of negligence or on account of non compliance of statutory obligations on the part of the Government. 12. In Common Cause vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667 , the Apex Court had the occassion to consider the distinction between private law and public law and referring to various judgments, it was held that the question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged, when performing the action, the public law or private law character of the action and a host of other relevant circumstances. It was held that public law field, since its emergence, is ever expanding in operational dimension and its expanse covers even contractual matters. Proceeding further, it was held that public law remedies have also been extended to the realm of tort. It was held that public law field, since its emergence, is ever expanding in operational dimension and its expanse covers even contractual matters. Proceeding further, it was held that public law remedies have also been extended to the realm of tort. The Apex Court thereafter placed reliance upon the judgment in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 as under: “51. The difference between public and private law was again examined by this Court in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa. Dr Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) in his separate concurring judgment laid down as under: (SCC pp. 768-69, paras 34-35) “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 civilise 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 Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has 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, as it is generally 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’ 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. 35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course, has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law — through appropriate proceedings. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles apply and the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self-restraint, lest proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law.” 13. Though an argument was raised that damages is payable only in a case of violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the said proposition was not accepted. It was observed that:- “If we make a fact analysis of the cases where compensation has been awarded by this Court, we will find that in all the cases, the fact of infringement was patent and incontrovertible, the violation was gross and its magnitude was such as to shock the conscience of the Court and it would have been gravely unjust to the person whose fundamental right was violated, to require him to go to the civil court for claiming compensation.” Proceeding further it was held that, where public functionaries are involved and matter relates to the violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duties etc., the remedy would lie, at the option of the petitioner, under the public law notwithstanding that damages are also claimed in those proceedings. Finally it was held that: “65. There is, therefore, not much of a difference between the powers of the court exercised here in this country under Article 32 or Article 226 and those exercised in England for judicial review. Finally it was held that: “65. There is, therefore, not much of a difference between the powers of the court exercised here in this country under Article 32 or Article 226 and those exercised in England for judicial review. Public law remedies are available in both the countries and the courts can award damages against public authorities to compensate for the loss or injury caused to the plaintiff/petitioner, provided the case involves, in this country, the violation of fundamental rights by the Government or other public authorities or that their action was wholly arbitrary or oppressive in violation of Article 14 or in breach of statutory duty and is not a purely private matter directed against a private individual.” 14. In Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2004) 6 SCC 765, the Apex Court held as under:- “22. In public law in certain situations, relief to the parties aggrieved by action or promises of public authorities can be granted on the doctrine of “legitimate expectation” but when grant of such relief is likely to harm larger public interest, the doctrine cannot be allowed to be pressed into service. We may usefully call in aid the legal maxim: “Salus populi est suprema lex: regard for the public welfare is the highest law.” This principle is based on the implied agreement of every member of society that his own individual welfare shall in cases of necessity yield to that of community. His property, liberty and life shall under certain circumstances be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good.” It is further held that: “25. Surely, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied against public authorities when their mistaken advice or representation is found to be in breach of a statute and therefore, against general public interest. The question, however, is whether the parties or individuals, who had suffered because of the mistake and negligence on the part of the statutory public authorities, would have any remedy of redressal for the loss they have suffered. The “rules of fairness” by which every public authority is bound, require them to compensate loss occasioned to private parties or citizens who were misled in acting on such mistaken or negligent advice of the public authority. There are no allegations and material in these cases to come to a conclusion that the action of the authorities was mala-fide. The “rules of fairness” by which every public authority is bound, require them to compensate loss occasioned to private parties or citizens who were misled in acting on such mistaken or negligent advice of the public authority. There are no allegations and material in these cases to come to a conclusion that the action of the authorities was mala-fide. It may be held to be careless or negligent. In some of the English cases, the view taken is that the public authorities cannot be absolved of their liability to provide adequate monetary compensation to the parties who are adversely affected by their erroneous decisions and actions. But in these cases, any directions to the public authorities to pay monetary compensation or damages would also indirectly harm general public interest. The public authorities are entrusted with public fund raised from public money. The funds are in trust with them for utilisation in public interest and strictly for the purposes of the statute under which they are created with specific statutory duties imposed on them. In such a situation when a party or citizen has relied, to his detriment, on an erroneous representation made by public authorities and suffered loss and where the doctrine of “estoppel” will not be invoked to his aid, directing administrative redressal would be a more appropriate remedy than payment of monetary compensation for the loss caused by non-delivery of the possession of the plots and consequent delay caused in setting up industries by the allottees.” 15. In Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs. University of Calcutta, (2002) 7 SCC 478, the Apex Court held as under: “8. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law. 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 undoubtedly an acknowledged remedy for protection and enforcement of such right and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional remedy, provided for the enforcement of fundamental right is distinct from, and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages for the tort, as was held by this Court in Nilabati Behera. It is in fact an innovation of a new tool with the court which are the protectors of the civil liberty of the citizens and the court, in exercise of the same, would be in a position to grant compensation when it comes to the conclusion that there has been a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.” *** *** *** “9. The courts having the obligation to satisfy the social aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool and grant compensation as damages in public law proceedings. Consequently when the court moulds the relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. The court in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some order which turns out to be ultra vires, or there has been some inaction in the performance of the duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act.” 16. However, public law remedy is sparingly exercised in the matter relating to payment of compensation on account of the limitations mentioned in the judgments referred above. 17. In Mc Gregor on Damages Eighteenth Edition, the consequences following upon intervening acts of a third party is narrated at pages 191 and 192 at paragraph 6-142, which reads as under:- “To this there is one important exception, where indeed the authorities are more profuse in contract then in tort itself. 17. In Mc Gregor on Damages Eighteenth Edition, the consequences following upon intervening acts of a third party is narrated at pages 191 and 192 at paragraph 6-142, which reads as under:- “To this there is one important exception, where indeed the authorities are more profuse in contract then in tort itself. This is the situation where an intervening voluntary act of a third party, intended by him to cause the damage is perpetrated in circumstances where the defendant's contractual duty to the claimant is to take care that such an act does not happen. It is only because the defendant's duty is to guard against the very harm which results that the law holds him liable. There is a variety of illustrations of this situation. The leading example is London Joint Stock Bank vs. Macmillan, (1918) AC 777. A customer of the claimant bank, in breach of his duty to the bank not to draw cheques so as to facilitate fraud, signed for a trusted clerk a cheque for £2 drawn in such a way as to enable the clerk readily to alter the amount to £120; this sum he obtained from the bank and absconded. The House of Lords held that the customer was liable to the bank for the forged increase. Lord Finlay L.C. said: “The fact that a crime was necessary to bring about the loss does not prevent its being the natural consequence of the carelessness. (1918 AC 777). In De la Bere vs. Pearson, 1908 (1) K.B. 280 (CA) the defendants, who published a newspaper, undertook to give advice to their readers and were asked by the claimant to recommend a good stockbroker. Without sufficient inquiries they recommended a broker who was not a member of the Stock Exchange and was an un-discharged bankrupt, and who immediately misappropriated to his own use the money sent to him by the claimant. The defendants were held liable for the loss. In Stansbie vs. Troman, (1948) 2 KB 48 (CA) the defendant, who was carrying out decorations in the claimant's house under contract with him and had been left alone there by the claimant's wife, failed to lock the house when he left it to obtain some wallpapers. During his absence thieves broke in and stole property of the claimant for the loss of which the defendant was held liable. During his absence thieves broke in and stole property of the claimant for the loss of which the defendant was held liable. The Court of Appeal approved the statement of the judge below that “the act of negligence itself consisted in the failure to take reasonable care to guard against the very thing that in fact happened” (1948) 2 KB 48 CA. In Marshall vs. Rubypoint, (1997) 1 E.G.L.R. 69 (CA) because the defendant landlords, in breach of their repairing covenant, had allowed the front door of the premises in which the claimant was a tenant to fall into serious disrepair, burglars were able to enter on three occasions, inflicting personal injury on the claimant and stealing and damaging his property. He was held entitled to recover for all these items of loss: none of the burglaries constituted a novus actus. In these cases the intervening act was a crime; a fortiori the damage would not have been too remote if the intervening act had been a tort or even not actionable. This was the position in Hamilton-Jones vs. David & Snape, (2004) 1 WLR 924 where the negligence of the claimant's solicitor gave the opportunity to the Tunisian father of her children improperly to remove them out of the country to Tunisia.” 18. Therefore, the only question is whether the petitioner has lost the said amount on account of any wilful negligence or breach of duty or violation of any statutory provisions. This is an instance where the investigation revealed that the amount was collected by another person fraudulently. Therefore, at the first blush, it may not occur that Union of India has any responsibility in the matter. But, on the peculiar facts of this case, one can notice that the petitioner is an unfortunate father of a son, who died in a motor accident in Dubai. The compensation on account of his death in a motor accident is deposited before a Dubai Court by the Insurance Company. Petitioner has no knowledge whatsoever, regarding the procedure to be adopted in a Dubai Court for receiving the compensation. He requested the 2nd respondent for assistance by issuing Ext.P1 on 29.10.1999 wherein he has stated that the Preliminary Court Dubai in execution of the judgment in Criminal Petition No. 279/1999 Crime (Traffic Violation) ordered to realise payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- Dirhams to the heirs of deceased Sunil Oommen. He requested the 2nd respondent for assistance by issuing Ext.P1 on 29.10.1999 wherein he has stated that the Preliminary Court Dubai in execution of the judgment in Criminal Petition No. 279/1999 Crime (Traffic Violation) ordered to realise payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- Dirhams to the heirs of deceased Sunil Oommen. He further stated that he being an old man and educationally not enough to deal with the proceedings to avail the award of a Dubai Court, he requires the Consulate to take up the matter with the concerned authorities and the company and collect the award as well as the dues of the deceased and sent it to him and his family. He had also enclosed copies of death certificate, heirship certificate, letter of the public prosecution, letter from the company and requested for proper guidance. Ext.P1 was replied by Ext.P2 which is already extracted earlier. Therefore, the Consulate have offered to help him to get the compensation amount which was already in deposit before the Dubai Court. Petitioner had sent the documents under cover of letter dated 21.3.2000 which apparently was not produced before the Court and it is seen sent back stating that the same will not be acceptable to the local court as the attestation was not proper and the documents are not translated. This process again took some time as far as the petitioner is concerned and he therefore sent all the documents duly translated and attested under cover of letter dated 7.8.2001. It could therefore be seen that by the time the petitioner had sent the documents duly attested and completed in all respects, the money was already disbursed and as per records, by an order of the Dubai Court on 26.2.2001. Thereafter, it seems that the Consulate had presented all the documents before the Dubai Court and they were informed that the money has already been received by Mr. Jaswinder Singh Bangar, the accused aforesaid. In this background, it has to be tested whether there was any negligence on the part of the Consulate in the matter. Petitioner of course has a case that he had sent all the documents to the Consulate under cover of letter dated 29.10.1999 enclosing the heirship certificate. Of course, the documents required translation and attestation which were sent again as per letter dated 21.3.2000. Consulate again returned the same without presenting any of those documents to the Court. Petitioner of course has a case that he had sent all the documents to the Consulate under cover of letter dated 29.10.1999 enclosing the heirship certificate. Of course, the documents required translation and attestation which were sent again as per letter dated 21.3.2000. Consulate again returned the same without presenting any of those documents to the Court. Apparently, when documents were sent under cover of letter dated 21.3.2000, the Consulate ought to have approached the Dubai Court, whereas they have written letter dated 27.3.2000 stating that the said documents will not be acceptable to a local court. They found fault with the documents by stating that it was not translated or attested. Apparently it was possible for the consulate itself to get proper translation and they could have arranged attestation at the relevant time. Even otherwise, necessary application ought to have been filed before the Dubai Court at the relevant time stating that the legal heirs are intending to file proper documents. In other words, some steps ought to have been taken by the Consulate to ensure that the amount deposited before the Dubai Court is not disbursed until the documents are properly placed. If some steps had been taken by the Consulate in that regard, such a fraudulent act would not have occurred or it could have been prevented. The matter was delayed by demanding documents which could have been easily done at the end of the Consulate themselves. In the process, a rightful claim for a substantially large amount payable to a citizen of India has been fraudulently appropriated by a third party. In cases of like nature, when a request is made by a citizen of India to the Consulate, it has to act in a more vigilant manner. If an application had been submitted by the Consulate before the Dubai Court immediately on receipt of communication from the petitioner, it would have made all the difference. Therefore, I am of the view that in handling this matter, there is negligence on the part of the Consulate which had caused substantial loss to the petitioner. Of course, it is also on account of a fraud being committed by a third party and also on account of the sluggishness or negligence on the part of the Consulate, the accused aforesaid had all the time to commit a fraud. Of course, it is also on account of a fraud being committed by a third party and also on account of the sluggishness or negligence on the part of the Consulate, the accused aforesaid had all the time to commit a fraud. It is evident from Ext.P12 that the Consulate had received several complaints of fraudulent collection of “diya money” awarded by Dubai Courts. Therefore, this appears to be a practice that whenever amounts are deposited in a Dubai Court, fraud is being committed for collection of the said amounts. When compensation amount of Indians are being deposited, unless the documents are processed through the Consulate, strict instructions ought to have been given not to disburse such amounts. It is apparent from the materials placed on record that the accused had even obtained a seal from the Embassy of UAE in New Delhi. Whether it is forged or not is not discerned from the facts. 19. As already indicated, if proper steps had been taken by the Consulate in time to put in an application claiming the said amount on behalf of the legal heirs, such fraud could have been prevented. Therefore, I am of the view that there is negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in handling the matter and in that view of the matter, the 1st respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner. However nothing prevents the first respondent from recovering the said amount from the accused by adopting appropriate proceedings and even by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings against the accused and his assets. If he had fraudulently removed his assets, the said aspect also has to be taken into consideration while recovering the amount from him. In the result, this writ petition is allowed as under: (i) That the 1st respondent shall pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 17,79,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs seventy nine thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition (9.4.2007) till realisation. (ii) The 1st respondent is permitted to recover the aforesaid amount from the accused by initiating appropriate proceedings as permitted under law including revenue recovery proceedings.