JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners, husband and wife, were residing in Elamkulam Village along with their children, triplets, all aged 4 years. The 1 st petitioner had studied only up to 4 th standard and the 2 nd petitioner had studied up to 10 th standard. The 3 rd respondent, the Central Bank of India is a Financial Institution involved in Banking business covered by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The 4 th respondent is the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in MC No.102/2016 preferred by the 3 rd respondent Bank invoking the provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (SARFAESI Act). 2. The petitioners state that they are neither secured debtors nor is the residential property where they reside a secured debt as prescribed under the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that on 01.02.2017 at around 12.30 p.m, the officers of the Bank and the Advocate Commissioner came to their residential premises along with the 1 st petitioner's brother and handed over Ext.P1 notice to the 1 st petitioner and ordered him to vacate the residential property. Ext.P1 is the possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act issued to Roy George T.M, the brother of the 1 st petitioner. The Advocate Commissioner demanded the petitioners to remove their personal effects from the house immediately stating that he is going to seal the premises. When the petitioners questioned the action of the Advocate Commissioner, they were threatened with dire consequences. The petitioners' neighbours, who rushed to the house of the petitioners on hearing the commotions, were also threatened and they stood away as passive onlookers to the criminal trespass and forceful dispossession of the petitioners and their minor children. As the petitioners were standing surprised by all these actions, the Advocate Commissioner closed their dwelling house, even without permitting to remove any of their immediate requirements and sealed the house, leaving them on the veranda. The petitioners state that they had to spend three days outside the house on the veranda braving the odds. As the petitioners were standing surprised by all these actions, the Advocate Commissioner closed their dwelling house, even without permitting to remove any of their immediate requirements and sealed the house, leaving them on the veranda. The petitioners state that they had to spend three days outside the house on the veranda braving the odds. The local people and the local ward member of the Corporation of Kochi, on seeing the plight of the petitioners and family, went through Ext.P1 notice and realised that the possession notice was not in relation to the property of the 1 st petitioner at Elamkulam where they were residing, but was in relation to the property situated in Maradu Village belonging to the 1 st petitioner's brother, Mr.Roy George. When this was brought to the notice of the Bank by the ward member, respondents 3 and 4 came to the petitioners' property on 04.02.2017 and made the petitioners sign some documents and gave them possession of the property on the same day itself. The petitioners state that the matter was reported by the media and the news item which came in daily has been produced as Ext.P2. 3. According to the petitioners, the action of respondents 3 and 4 in trespassing into their property and forcefully dispossessing them and their minor children violates the basic principle of natural justice and the personal liberty granted under the Constitution of India . The petitioners were wrongfully dispossessed from their property for three days and nights and the same amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India . The petitioners contend that, the 3 rd respondent which comes within the purview of State under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is liable to pay compensation for the infringement of life and personal liberty of the petitioners and their minor children. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for direction to respondents 1 and 2, namely, the Union of India and State of Kerala to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs towards the infringement of life and personal liberty of the petitioners and their minor children in the hands of respondents 3 and 4. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for direction to respondents 1 and 2, namely, the Union of India and State of Kerala to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs towards the infringement of life and personal liberty of the petitioners and their minor children in the hands of respondents 3 and 4. A direction is also sought to the concerned to take appropriate action against the respondents who are guilty in dispossessing the 1 st petitioner and his family from his house illegally. 4. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent Bank stating that the father and brother of the 1 st petitioner had availed two loans from the Perumanoor branch of the Bank by hypothecating 1.21 Ares of land in Survey No.1032/3 of Poonithura Village. They had also availed another loan from Kadavanthra branch of the Bank by hypothecating 5.67 Ares of property in Survey Nos.581/4 and 582/2 of Elamkulam Village, Kanayannoor Taluk. Both the properties belonged to Sri.T.G. Manuel, the father of the 1 st petitioner (now deceased). Since there was default in repayment of loan, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated. All notices in respect of the SARFAESI proceedings were served on the borrower in the house situated in Elamkulam property where the petitioners are residing. It is stated that the Manager of Perumanoor Branch of the Bank took charge only on 29.04.2016 and since the notices were served on the borrower in the tharavadu house at Elamkulam, it was presumed to be the property mentioned in Ext.P1 notice. It is stated that the property in Elamkulam was taken possession by bona fide mistake instead of the property in Poonithura Village for which SARFAESI proceedings were initiated. It is further stated that, at the time of taking possession on 01.02.2017, Mr.Roy George, the brother of the 1 st petitioner was also present and none of them brought to the notice of the Bank that the property that was taken possession is different. The mistake was realised only on 03.02.2017 and the property was returned immediately on 04.02.2017. It is further stated that, at the time of taking possession on 01.02.2017, Mr.Roy George, the brother of the 1 st petitioner was also present and none of them brought to the notice of the Bank that the property that was taken possession is different. The mistake was realised only on 03.02.2017 and the property was returned immediately on 04.02.2017. The action of the Bank taking possession of the property due to the bona fide mistake is highly regretted and they have expressed sincere regrets in this regard to the petitioners as and when the mistake was realised and the petitioners have accepted the regrets and condoned the same and the present allegation is the result of an afterthought. It is accordingly contended that the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation much less the amount claimed in the writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, the State of Kerala stating that the Bank authorities sealed the house of the petitioners at Elamkulam Village under the impression that the same is the property mentioned in the SARFAESI notice, leaving the petitioners and family on the varanda on 01.02.2017. On realising the mistake, the Bank returned the key of the house to the petitioners on 04.02.2017. It is further stated that the nature of dispute is civil in nature and the petitioners have not submitted any petition in this regard before the Police authorities. 6. Heard Sri. Shafik M. Abdulkhadir, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel for the 3 rd respondent Bank and the learned Government Pleader for the 2 nd respondent. 7. It is to be noted that the relief sought for in the writ petition is for direction to respondents 1 and 2, namely, the Union of India and State of Kerala to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs towards the infringement of life and personal liberty of the petitioners and their minor children in the hands of the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners contended that respondents 3 and 4 had willfully infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined in the Constitution of India and the Union of India and the State of Kerala are bound to compensate for the infringement of life and personal liberty in the hands of respondents 3 and 4. 8. The petitioners contended that respondents 3 and 4 had willfully infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined in the Constitution of India and the Union of India and the State of Kerala are bound to compensate for the infringement of life and personal liberty in the hands of respondents 3 and 4. 8. It is true that the 3 rd respondent Bank being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Even if the Bank is State- controlled, it is still a separate juristic person. The Bank is responsible for its own actions and those of its employees. The State cannot be held vicariously liable to pay compensation for the alleged illegal actions of the officials of the Bank. The Bank, as a separate legal entity, is primarily responsible for the conduct of its employees. The petitioners have no case that the State itself committed the alleged acts or that the officers were acting under the direct instructions of the State. No compensation has been sought for in the writ petition from the 3 rd respondent Bank or its officials. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition or to avail themselves of any other remedy available in law, seeking compensation from the 3 rd respondent for the alleged infringement of their life and personal liberty as well as that of their minor children.