The petitioner is father of the deceased boy by name B.Uday Shekar, belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The deceased was studying VII Class in the year 1998 in A.P. Residential School for Scheduled Tribes at Utnoor of Adilabad District. Alleging that the deceased was suspected to be a person who had stolen away foot wear of one student on 02.04.1998, the deceased was beaten by four students in that residential school. At the time of the said incident, the deceased suffered injuries. After taking permission from the school authorities on 04.04.1998, the deceased along with another boy was proceeding to parents’ house of the deceased. After getting down the bus, the deceased fell down and died. Case in Crime No.6 of 1998 was registered by Jainoor Police under Section 302 I.P.C. against four boys who are said to have inflicted blows on the deceased. After conducting post-mortem on dead body of the deceased boy, post mortem examination certificate was issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Hospital, Utnoor, to the effect that death was due to head injury, as a result ofintracranial haemorrhage and contuse of brain.

2. Alleging that it was due to inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 namely Principal and House Master of the residential school, the petitioner approached this Court with this Writ Petition seeking ‘Writ of Mandamus’ against the respondents for payment of damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for depriving life of his son who was under custody of the respondent authorities. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is a case of custodial death and therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation or damages to the petitioner for loss of his son. The 1st respondent on behalf of the respondents filed counter opposing this petition and contending that the incident which took place on 02.04.1998 was not brought to the notice of either the principal or the house master of the residential school and that after death of the student, there was agitation of the public in front of the school and that therefore, the principal and the house master were kept under suspension and that enquiry was ordered and that after enquiry the Assistant Project Director, I.T.D.A, Utnoor submitted report to the effect that though the cause of death seem to be due to beating of students, condition of the deceased boy deteriorated only after he boarded the bus on 04.04.1998 to go to his native place and that the police registered case and took the boys who were responsible for beating into custody and none of them was involved in this case and that there was no carelessness or laxity on the part of the Principal or the House Master before death of the deceased.

3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that though the respondents 2 and 3 were not the persons who were responsible for the beatings of the deceased, they failed to take immediate steps by sending the deceased boy to hospital after the incident which took place on 02.04.1998 and that it amounts to laxity or negligence on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 for which the Government is liable to pay compensation for the resultant death of the deceased boy. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on lot of case law on the subject.

In Smt.Kolli Yerukulamma V. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam (1996(4) ALT 554)of this Court, the boys were taking shelter in varandah of the school when there was heavy rain at 9.00 A.M. when class rooms were yet to be opened and suddenly there was collapse of brick columns resulting in fall of beams and roof slabs of first and second floor entrapping the children and causing instantaneous death of 13 children and multiple injuries to 36 children. This Court awarded compensation against Visakhapatnam Port Trust for death of the deceased boys.

In A.V.Janaki Amma V. Union of India (2004(1) ALD 19)this Court culled out the following principles from the decided case in India and Britain on the subject of strict liability