JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents therewith. 2. The petitioner, who is a household woman and a resident of Basohli, suffered a bullet injury on her face leaving her grievously injured but without any compensation from the State despite the fact that the bullet injury so received by the petitioner was inflicted by none other than at the hands of the personnel of IRP Police, who was stationed in the Police Station Basohli of the then State of J&K (now UT of J&K). 3. The petitioner is maintaining this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the violation of her fundamental right to life and liberty having suffered serious invasion of her person at the hands of the State thereby entitling her to have the compensation delivered to her by the State. 4. The incident is of 11.10.2002. With respect to the incident, in which the petitioner had come to suffer the bullet injury, a magisterial enquiry was ordered and conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Executive Magistrate), Kathua, which came up with a detailed narrative about the entire incident of 11.10.2002 and the enquiry finding was to be effect that the personnels of IRP, placed under the charge of ASI Ghulam Nabi, 4th Bn., were stationed in the Police Station Basohli in connection with the General Assembly Elections, 2002 duty who had resorted to the firing purportedly in response to an aggravating situation which had built up thereby inviting the reaction from the said Police Station detailed IRP personnel. 5. Who was the erring personnel or the party resulting in the incident of firing has no bearing as the fact remains that the petitioner had suffered the bullet injury to her person which was not a self-inflicted or self-invited injury or caused by any other private individual but by the act of the police firing by the IRP personnel. Surely, the petitioner was not a part of the mob for checking whom the resort to firing by the IRP personnel had come to take place as the petitioner was within the confines of her residential house when the bullet shot entered her house and hit the petitioner leaving her right eye irreparably injured. 6. The petitioner came to be hospitalized for medical treatment in the Govt. 6. The petitioner came to be hospitalized for medical treatment in the Govt. Medical College, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu under MRD No. 306045 bearing medical history of bullet injury on the right eye. The date of admission of the petitioner was of 12.10.2002 and the date of discharge 17.10.2002. 7. The petitioner for the purpose of better treatment sought medical advice from the medical experts whereby she was advised to go for facial reconstruction for the purpose of restoring her face to the best extent possible to a state of normalcy, but because of the deficit of finances available at her disposal, the petitioner is still carrying on with the same State of injury effects on her face, which is a daily reminder to her about the pain and suffering which she has come to suffer uninvitingly and for which she has staked her claim for compensation of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- which is an exhibit of a bona fide of her writ petition that the petitioner has chosen not to except a windfall out of the incident of her injury at the hands of the police personnel of the State. 8. The respondents, in particular the State, in response to the writ petition have shown least sensitivity to the case of the petitioner which is exhibited from response to one of the averments in the writ petition in para 14 to which the respondent-State is saying and quoted as under:- "The beauty of a person is his/her good deeds which forms a permanent feature of one's life and not the facial beauty alone." 9. This Court is no more interested in perpetuating the agony of the petitioner any further and is holding the petitioner entitled for compensation for the bullet injury inflicted to her person by none other than the agency of the State i.e. IRP personnel stationed in the Police Station Basohli on the relevant date and place. The injury of the petitioner is grievous in nature and its effects on the person and psyche of the petitioner are manifold grievous. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to get compensation from the State. The injury of the petitioner is grievous in nature and its effects on the person and psyche of the petitioner are manifold grievous. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to get compensation from the State. Given the fact that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2004 and the date of the incident is of the year 2002, as such, the petitioner is held entitled to get compensation at enhanced rate than is claimed in the writ petition. 10. The facts of the case bear a very close resemblance with the case decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh tiled "State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Smt. Shantibai & Anr." 2005 ACJ 313 , in which the police personnels had resorted to using tear gas and lathi-charge which then led to opening of police firing in the area to disperse mob which left two women receiving the bullet injuries from the firing made by the police. The women receiving the injuries were standing on the roof top of their house at the time of getting hit by the fire shots. Said injured women filed a civil suit for compensation which came to be granted in their favour by the trial court against which an appeal was taken before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in which the question came to be dealt with on the application of plea of sovereign immunity so as to excuse from the liability fastened upon the State for the compensation awarded in favour of the injured women. 11. In the aforesaid case, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh taking notice of the development of law on the subject of the judgment starting from the case titled "Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jatin v. State of U.P.," AIR 1965 SC 1039 came to hold that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has with the march of time narrowed down the scope and sphere of sovereign immunity thereby making the State and its officials accountable for acts of omission and commission on its/their part resulting in infringement of fundamental rights, including right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In this case, the compensation payable in favour of the injured women by the court below was upheld. 12. In this case, the compensation payable in favour of the injured women by the court below was upheld. 12. Article 226 of the Constitution of India affords aggrieved persons a remedy against wrongs suffered at the hands of State and its authorities on the doctrine of public law torts. 13. In the case of "[1]Nilabati Behera alias Lalit Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors." 1993 (2) SCC 746 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India came to recognize judicial activism in public law actions reminding the courts to evolve new tools and mould remedy to provide redressal in a case of deprivation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and enforcing the regime of compensation as being a public law remedy based on a strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence for in private law in an action based on tort. 14. In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "[2]Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.," 2016 (15) SCC 525 . In this case, the petitioners who have suffered use of excess police force upon their person were held to have suffered breach of their fundamental rights entitling them to compensation as a result whereof the petitioners in the said case were compensated with compensation amount of Rs. 2 lac and Rs. 1 lac respectively. 15. The present case is no different in earning same legal approach from this Court, as it is through the medium of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the petitioner herein is seeking compensation for wrong done to her person. 16. In view of the aforesaid situation, this Court directs the respondent no. 1 i.e. State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of Jammu & Kashmir) to pay compensation of an amount of Rs. 10 lacs (rupees ten lacs) to the petitioner. This enhanced compensation of Rs. 10 lacs is being awarded because of the long pendency of the writ petition of the petitioner which is not of any fault of the petitioner but the default on the part of the Court in timely delivery of justice in the cause of the petitioner. 10 lacs (rupees ten lacs) to the petitioner. This enhanced compensation of Rs. 10 lacs is being awarded because of the long pendency of the writ petition of the petitioner which is not of any fault of the petitioner but the default on the part of the Court in timely delivery of justice in the cause of the petitioner. The compliance be carried out by the respondent no. 1 within a period of six months with effect from the date of this judgement, failing which the compensation awarded shall be payable along with interest @ 9% per annum till its actual realization. Disposed of.