The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the school and the state to pay compensation for the death of a student due to negligence, as established by various legal provisions and judgments.

By consent of both sides the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- either jointly or severally to the petitioners family for the murder of his son K. Jagankumar by the 7th respondent within his class room in the 5th respondent School during the school hours.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

.(a) The petitioners eldest son K. Jagankumar, aged 16 years was studying in 11th standard (+1) in the 5th respondent School. On 11. 2004, at about 8.30 a.m., the petitioner dropped his son K. Jagankumar in the School and returned to his home. Within two hours, petitioner received a shocking news that his son K. Jagankumar died. Petitioner was informed that his sons body was in the mortuary in Government Hospital, Pollachi.

.(b) On 11. 2004 at about 12.30 hours one T. Balamuga Ramesh the classmate of the petitioners son, lodged a complaint before the Mahalingapuram Police Station, Pollachi, stating that the deceased was studying in the same class in Arts Group (11th standard -D Section) and during the morning session after intervel, the English Teacher viz., the 6th respondent had not come for the third period and due the absence of the Teacher, the students had no control and indulged in free for all activities.

(c) At about 10.30 a.m., the 7th respondent, the classmate of the deceased was patted on the back by the deceased K. Jagankumar and having got angry, the 7th respondent caught hold of the shirt of the deceased K. Jagankumar and banged his head on the corner of the wall. The deceased fell on the back and could not get up as he was unconscious.

.(d) The class leader Sikandar Basha and other classmates sprayed water on the face of the deceased, but there was no response. The Class Teacher was informed, who informed the 5th respondent/Headmaster and other teachers. The deceased was taken to the hospital by the students and teachers, where he was declared brought dead by the Doctors.

.(e) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahalingapuram Police Station, Pollachi, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in crime No.8 of 2004 on 11. 2004 against the 7th respondent for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. The investigation was completed and the police filed charge sheet against the 7th respondent. As the 7th respondent was a minor then, he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore, and he was convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and was ordered to undergo sentence for a period of five years in the Special Home with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to be in the Special Home for one more year.

.(f) According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent School is a Government School and in view of the absence of the 6th respondent, who was the Teacher in charge for the particular period, the students indulged in free for all activities, which resulted in the murder of the petitioners son by the 7th respondent. The School authorities are responsible for the death of the petitioners son by not sending any teacher at the relevant time. Petitioner states that in view of the negligence and dereliction of duty of the respondents 5 and 6, due to which the petitioners son was killed by the 7th respondent, the respondents are to pay compensation on the ground of vicarious liability.

.(g) The petitioner submitted a representation on 30.5.2005 to the first respondent and prayed for payment of Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation to the petitioners family due to the death of his eldest son inside the classroom, however there was no response in spite of receipt of the same. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus seeking direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The writ petition was admitted on 20.10.2005. The first respondent has received the notice from this Court on 8. 2007, th