The central legal point established in the judgment is the State's liability to pay compensation under public law duty, as expanded by Article 21, and the influence of negligence and ownership in determining liability and quantum of compensation.

1. This Writ Petition at the instance of the unfortunate parents seek a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of their only son Irulaiya, who was killed in petrol bomb blast.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The petitioners are residents of Manakudi Village, Paramakudi Taluk in the district of Ramanathapuram. Their only son Irulaiya studied upto 10th standard. Since the family has no independent source of income, Irulaiya discontinued his studies and he was doing mason work in and around Paramakudi and was earning a sum of Rs.500/-per day. He was the sole breadwinner of the family.

3. According to the petitioners, on the fateful day (20 May 2009), Irulaiya was proceeding to Madurai and he was travelling in a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. When the bus reached Thiruppuvanam in Sivagangai District, at about 02.00 p.m., three individuals belonging to Viduthalai Siruthaigal Party, threw petrol bombs to the bus. The bomb blast caused multiple injuries on the body of Irulaiya and he was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Subsequently, on 23 May 2009, Irulaiya succumbed to the injuries.

4. According to the petitioners, the death took place on account of the negligence of police officers, who were entrusted with the task of preserving law and order. Therefore, the State was liable to pay compensation. The deceased was aged 26 years old at the time of his death. He was earning a sum of Rs.500/-per day as a Mason. Though a representation was given to the respondents on 24 March, 2010 claiming a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- as compensation, there was no response. The deceased was their sole supporter and as such, they were denied the assistance and company of their son. Therefore, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The fifth respondent, Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station filed a counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the fifth respondent, at about 02.00 p.m., on 20 May, 2009 there was an incident of petrol bomb blast in a Government bus at Thiruppuvanam and in the said occurrence, three passengers sustained injuries and the son of the petitioners, who was one among the injured, died on 23 May, 2009 at Government Hospital, Madurai. The investigation revealed that one Siruthai Selvam @ Selvakumar, Jeyaraj and Kani belonged to Viduthalai Siruthaigal party threw petrol bombs on the Government owned bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-2155. The accused were expressing their protest on account of the death of Thiru.Velu Pillai Prabakaran, the L.T.T.E. Leader of Sri Lanka. The accused were arrested and a case in Crime No.216 of 2009 was registered under Sections 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 323, 324 and 302 IPC and after the conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and it was taken on file in P.R.C.No.13 of 2010. The fifth respondent specifically denied the allegation of negligence leveled against the police and the liability of Government to pay compensation.

6. Even though the matter was periodically adjourned for filing counter affidavit on behalf of the Government, no such affidavit has been filed. When the Writ Petition was taken up on 08 February, 2011, I have passed a specific order directing the Government to file their counter. While giving such a direction, it was made clear that in the event of their failure to file counter, the matter would be decided on the basis of available materials. In spite of passing such an order, the State has not chosen to file counter. Therefore, I am deciding the Writ Petition on the basis of materials available on record.

SUBMISSIONS:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the deceased was travelling in a Government bus and as such, the liability is on the Governmen