Payal vs State on 15 March, 2010
The Supreme Court has held that the remedy of compensation available in public law is "distinct from and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages for tort", resulting from the contravention of the fundamental rights [See Nilabati Behera (Smt) alias Lalita v. State of Orissa reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746, D.K.Basu v. State of W.B., reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416, Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 667]. In case where the tort of misfeasance or non-feasance in public office or of general of breach of statutory duty is established and no factual dispute arises in respect of such default in public law proceedings, the court will be within its power to award compensation as a remedy against the defaulting public officer and also the State Government for its vicarious liability. Such interface between the public law remedy and tort law would be essential to meet the ends of justice and will act as a deterrent against the public authority for preventing it from acting with a reckless disregard of the statutory provisions to the detriment of the public.