# GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BALBIR SINGH - **Citation:** [2004] 3 S.C.R. 68 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2004-03-17 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7173 of 2002 - **Bench:** S.N. Variava, H.K. Sema - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ghaziabad-development-authority-v-balbir-singh-19797 - **Pages:** 24 ## Headnote Consumer Protection Act, 1986: C Consumer Forums-Jurisdiction-In cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities-Held, Act has a wide reach and the National Consumer Disputes Redressa/ Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities-Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office, i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or irijury is D suffered by a citizen. Lucknow Development Authority v. MK. Gupta, [1994) I SCC 243, relied on. E Statutory/public authorities--Deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office-Compensation for loss/injury/harassment/mental agonyAccountability of erring officer-Held, the word 'compensation' is of a very wide connotation-It may canst itute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult p or injury or loss-Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or service but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him-Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to ma/a fide or capricious or oppressive act-Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an G officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation-If the Commission/Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and then also direct recovery from those found responsible H for such unpardonable behaviour-Where there is a specific finding of 68 G.D.A. v. BALBIR SINGH 69 misfeasance in public office compensation for mental agony can be granted- A The compensation has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury-The Forum or Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury--Alongwith recompensating the loss the Commission!F orum may also compensate fo• harassment/injury B both mental and physical-Administrative law-Public authoritiesNegligence-Accountability. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, [1994] 1 SCC 243, relied on. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India, [2000) 6 SCC 113, referred to. c Development authorities-Deficiency in service-Interest granted by Consumer Forums-Nature of-National Consumer Disputes Redressal D Commission granting 18% interest holding that this would take into consideration the escalation in cost of construction as well-Contention that interest is to be awarded keeping in view the rates of interest payable by financial institutions on deposits with them-Held, in all these cases interest is awarded as and by way of compensation/damages-Whilst so awarding it E must be shown that there is relationship between the amount awarded and the default/unjustifiable delay/harassment-It is thus necessary that there be separate awards under each such head . with reasons why such award is justified-The principle that interest must be granted at the current rate of interest is only applicable where the proceedings are for recovery of debt or F damages-They apply where a refund of .amount is being claimed and the direction is to refund amount with interest-The principles which govern grant of interest do not apply to grant of compensation. Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367; In Defence of Amit Das v. State of Bihar, [2001] 2 SCC 9 and United India Insurance Co. G Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, [2002) 6 SCC 281, cited. Development authority-Allotment of flats/plots-Deficiency in serviceCases before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission involving varying and differentfacts--Commission awarding 18% interest uniformly in H 70 SUPRE ## Text _Characters 0–39,883 of 56,986. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39883 for what follows._ A GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BALBIR SINGH MARCH 17, 2004 B [S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: C Consumer Forums-Jurisdiction-In cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities-Held, Act has a wide reach and the National Consumer Disputes Redressa/ Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities-Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office, i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or irijury is D suffered by a citizen. Lucknow Development Authority v. MK. Gupta, [1994) I SCC 243, relied on. E Statutory/public authorities--Deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office-Compensation for loss/injury/harassment/mental agonyAccountability of erring officer-Held, the word 'compensation' is of a very wide connotation-It may canst itute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult p or injury or loss-Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or service but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him-Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to ma/a fide or capricious or oppressive act-Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an G officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation-If the Commission/Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and then also direct recovery from those found responsible H for such unpardonable behaviour-Where there is a specific finding of 68 G.D.A. v. BALBIR SINGH 69 misfeasance in public office compensation for mental agony can be granted- A The compensation has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury-The Forum or Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury--Alongwith recompensating the loss the Commission!F orum may also compensate fo• harassment/injury B both mental and physical-Administrative law-Public authoritiesNegligence-Accountability. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, [1994] 1 SCC 243, relied on. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India, [2000) 6 SCC 113, referred to. c Development authorities-Deficiency in service-Interest granted by Consumer Forums-Nature of-National Consumer Disputes Redressal D Commission granting 18% interest holding that this would take into consideration the escalation in cost of construction as well-Contention that interest is to be awarded keeping in view the rates of interest payable by financial institutions on deposits with them-Held, in all these cases interest is awarded as and by way of compensation/damages-Whilst so awarding it E must be shown that there is relationship between the amount awarded and the default/unjustifiable delay/harassment-It is thus necessary that there be separate awards under each such head . with reasons why such award is justified-The principle that interest must be granted at the current rate of interest is only applicable where the proceedings are for recovery of debt or F damages-They apply where a refund of .amount is being claimed and the direction is to refund amount with interest-The principles which govern grant of interest do not apply to grant of compensation. Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367; In Defence of Amit Das v. State of Bihar, [2001] 2 SCC 9 and United India Insurance Co. G Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, [2002) 6 SCC 281, cited. Development authority-Allotment of flats/plots-Deficiency in serviceCases before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission involving varying and differentfacts--Commission awarding 18% interest uniformly in H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R. A all cases-Held, Commission has been awarding interest at a flat rate of 18% / irrespective of the facts of each case-This is unsustainable-Compensation cannot be uniform-Award of compensation must be under different separate heads and must vary from case to case depending on the facts of each caseGuide/ines given how compensation would be awarded in different types of B cases-In all fi1ture matters, Commission/Forum must award compensation under various heads if it concludes that there has been deficiency of service or misfeasance in public office. Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Rajnish Chander Sharde JT, C (2000) 8 SC 154; Bihar State Housing Board v. Prio Ranjan Roy, [1997] 6 SCC 487 and Prashant Kumar Shahi v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, (2000) 4 sec 120, referred to. Words and Phrases : 'Compensation' - Connotation of 0 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7173 of 2002. From the Judgmen.t and Order dated 28.10.2002. in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21061/2001 from the Order dated 31.8.2001 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. E 703 of 2001. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 7391, 7793, 8400, 7700, 7288, 7792, 7788, 7396, F 7685, 8408, 8415, 7786, 7790, 7672, 7289, 7723, 8418, 7690, 8407, 7782, 7725, 7695, 8404, 7662, 7676, 7693, 7724, 7286, 7670, 7688, 8405, 7787, 7789, 8530, 8527, 8588, 7776, 7667, 7783, 7224, 7699, 7698, 7120/2002, C.A. Nos. 390/2003, 394, 397, 399, 400, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 1057, 1012, 1018, 1022 1488, 1489, 1492, 1493, 1494, 1495, 1499, 3256, 3910, SLP(C) Nos. 8758, 8760, 8764, C.A. Nos. 3955/2003, 4068, SLP(C) Nos. G 6079, 6081, 6083, 6084, 6085, 9600, 9663 9666, 9669, 9060, 9061, 9062, 3657, 8417, 2692, 4082, 11676, 12592, 5473, 1010, 6082, 12594, 1013, 1019, 1960 1964, 3382, 20283, 20285, 6299, 6302 6303, 6304, 6305 6306, 6307, 9715 20289, 8504, 22189, 549, 23127, 8402, 392, 404, 405, 410, 1014, 1491, 1498, 3381, 8514. H G.D.A. v. BALBIR SINGH 71 C.A. Nos. 1009/2003, 7878, 7775, 7781 12584, 12596, 12601 12604, A 14905, 12593 8529, 7389, 393, 409, 9747, 7780 8403, 7777, 0 14052, 14053, 7395, 7388, 407, 8765, 8766, 8763, 9190, 9670, 9665, 9662, 12583, 12587, 12588, 12589, 12591, 12599 12603, 12605, 12606 12607, SLP(C) Nos.1260812609, 13785 12585, 12586, 14905 15139, 17803, SLP(C) Nos. 17805-17806, 16414, 7397, 7385, 7390, 7875, 7778, 8399, 7774, 7879 8398, 7232, 7236, B 8401, 8586, 8528, 7287, 7779, 389, 391, CA. No. 395/2003 401, 403, 408, 1011, CA. No. 1016/2003, 1015, 1017, 1020, 1490, 1496, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1966-1967, 1965, 3956, 3957, 3958, 3959, 3658, C.A. Nos. 411-412, 7386, 1021, R.P. (C) No. 1649 in 18369, SLP (C) No. 4275/2004 Not ready matters - listed for directions C.A. Nos. 7225, 7285, 8589, 8587, C.A. No. 398, 1500, 1501, 8755, 6078, 6080, 9059, 9063, 9064, 12582, 12590 12610, 16415, 6077, 15291, 20287, 20288, 23120, 23124, 23122, 6297, 6298, 6300, 6301, 9717/2003, c C.A. No. 1562/2004, with SLP(C) Nos. 4853-4854/2004. D · Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, K.B. Sinha, Sudhir Kulshreshta, Manish Singhvi, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Santosh Kumar, A.S. Rawat, P. Narasimhan, K.N. Nagpal, V arinder Kumar Sharma, Pramod Swarup, Y. Prabhakara Rao, Ashok K. Srivastava, Ravindra Kumar, Neeraj Kumar E Jain, Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Bharat Singh, Amit Paw.an, Ugra Sankar Prasad, Anil Nag, Krishnanand Pandeya, Shibashish Mishra, Devesh Singh, Paraney Ranjan , Praneet Ranjan, S.C. Paul, Manoj Kulshreshtha, Ashok Yadav, M.S. Chanchal Goyal, C.I. Bashal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Himanshu Shekhar, Prasenjit Keswani, Prashant Chaudhary, S.P. Sharma, Abhishek p Atrey, Shishir Singh, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Satinder S. Gulati, Dr. Kailash .. Chandra, Satish Aggarawal, Rajesh K. Sharma, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Irshad Ahmad, Avatar Singh Rawat, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, L~shmi Raman Sin~h, S.L. Aneja, Mohd Tahir Siddiqui, Devendra Singh, B.C. Pandey, Rakesh K. Sharma, M.C. Dhingra, P.N. Puri, V. Sudeer, M.B. Rama Subba Raju, Balaji G Srinivasan, Ms. S. Sunita, S. Srinivasan, Debasis Misra, P.D. Sharma, Anil Mittal, P.K. Aggarwal, Ranjan Mukherjee, Uma Datta, Rakesh K. Khanna, Mrs. Rashmi Khanna, Shashank Shekher, Surya Kant, Syed Ali Ahmed, Syed Tanweer Ahmed, R.D. Upadhyay, Anil Kumar Jha, Suresh C.Gupta, A.Guneshwar Sharma, J.K. Pali, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Chandra Prakash H Pandey, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, B.R. Sharma, Rajeev K. Singh, P.N. 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) 3 S.C.R. 'I A Ramalingam, S.K. Nandy, Alok Gupta, Ms.Indra Sawhney, Ms. Arnita Gupta, y Pramjeet Singh Lamba, Ms. Neelan Tiwari, Ms. Manjula Gupta, M.P. Shorawala, K.L. Janjani, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr. Vinod Tiwari, Rakesh K. Khanna, Piadeep Misra, Sandeep Kumar, Dr. LB. Gaur, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, K.S.Rana, A.K. Sen Gupta, M. Jayasree, Rajiv Mehta, K.C. Kaushik, B uulshan Bajawa, (NP), Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Dr. Meera Aggrawal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Ashutosh Verma, Amit Singh, Amit Kumar, Kuldip Singh, Prabhijit Jauhar, S.S. Jauhar, Ms. S. Narang, Raj Kumar Mehta, Prashant Ku!11ar, Himinder Lal, S.B. Sinha, Ramesh Babu M.R., Raj Kurnar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Anuju, A.N. Baradaiyar, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, C Mrs. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Mahesh Srivastava for M/s. l.M. Nanavati Associates, Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Brij Bhushan, Ranjit Khatri, Abhijat P.Medh, L.C. Goyal, A.S. Rawat and Javed Mahmud Rao for the appearing parties. Respondent-in-person in C.A. Nos. 8400/02, 8418/02, 8407 /02, C.A. D No. 7224/02, 6079/03, 6084/03, 9600/03, 9663/03, 9062/03, 6306/03, 393/ 03, and in C.A. No. 409/03. The following Order of the Court was delivered : E In 'this batch of matters the question is whether grant of interest at the F G H rate of 18% per annum by the Consumer Forums in all cases is justifiable. As facts are varying, at this stage, this Court is only dealing with the question of law. Thereafter this Court shall take up each case separately. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission considered a bunch of matters, the lead matter being the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar. The Commission held, in those cases, that in cases of deficiency of service by development authorities like HUDA and GDA, interest must be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum and that this would take into consideration the escalation in the cost of construction as well. Pursuant to this Judgment the National Commission has been disposing of all subsequent matters with a one paragraph order which, for all practical purposes, reads as under :- "We have already taken a view in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar, [Revision Petition No. G.D.A. v. BALBlR SINGH 73 1197 of 1998], where we have upheld the award of interest at the A rate of 18% per annum. We have provided for certain period during which the interest would not run. The impugned judgment is modified only to that extent. This Revision Petition is disposed of in terms of our judgment in the case of HUDA v. Darsh Kumar". It has been shown to us that the facts are varying and different. Whilst facts of all cases cannot be set out by way of illustration it must be stated that _,,._ in some cases even though monies had been paid and allotments had been made of flats/plots, the scheme itself got cancelled for some reason or the other. Possession was thus refused to be delivered of the flats/plots allotted to the allottees. In some cases, at a much later date, possession of some other flat/plot was offered at an increased rate. In some cases possession was offered but not taken by the party. In some cases even though the scheme was not cancelled and there was no refusal to deliver possession, yet possession B c was not delivered for a number of years even after monies had been received. D In some cases the construction was of sub-standard quality or it was incomplete. In some of the cases the authority has demanded extra amounts from the party. In· some cases the party had not paid the extra amounts whilst in some cases they had paid those amounts. The question, therefore, was of refund of those amounts wrongly collected. In some cases allotments were E made and possession offered of flats/land which was encumbered or occupied by some other party. In some cases the party had asked for refund of amounts paid. Irrespective of the type of case, irrespective of the amount of delay, the F National Commission has been granting/confirming interest at the rate of 18% per annum without even going into the facts of the case. It must be mentioned that in some of the matters before us it has been pointed out that ·the District and the State Forums had granted interest at a lower rate. Appeals had been filed only by the authority. Yet the National Commission has, in the G Appeal filed by the authority, increased the rate of interest to 18% per annum. The learned Attorney General submitted that the liability to pay interest only arises if there is any default or omission on the part of the Body which caused damage or prejudice to the allottee of the flat/plot. This submission requires to be accepted. However, in the context of the Consumer Protection H 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R. A Act the principles laid down in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M K. Gupta, reported in [l 994] l SCC 243 have to be kept in mind. In this case the question was whether a Development Authority rendered service to bring it within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It has been held that the Development Authority is rendering service. It has been also B held as follows:- c D "8. Having examined the wide reach of the Act and jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain a complaint not only against business or trading activity but even against service rendered by statutory and public authorities the stage is now set for determining if the Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Act could award compensation and if such compensation could be for harassment and agony to a consumer. Both these aspects specially the latter are of vital significance in the present day context. Still more important issue is the liability of payment. That is, should the society or the tax payer be burdened for oppressive and capricious act of the public officers or it be paid by those responsible for it. The administrative law of accountability of public authorities for their arbitrary and even ultra vires actions has taken many strides. It is now accepted both by this Court and English Courts that the State is liable to compensate E for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary actions of its employees. In State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam, AIR (1967) SC 1885 - [l 967] 3 SCR 938 the order of the High Court directing payment of compensation for disposal of seized vehicles without waiting for the outcome of decision in appeal was upheld F both on principle of bailee's 'legal obligation to preserve the property intact and also the obligation to take reasonable care of it .... to return it in the same condition in which it was seized' and also because the Government was, 'bound to return the said property by reason of its statutory obligation or to pay its value if it had disabled itself from G returning it either by its own act or by act of its agents and servants'. It was extended further even to bona fide action of the authorities if it was contrary to law in Lala Bishambar Nath v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, [1973] l SCC 788 - AIR (1973) SC 1289. It was held that where the authorities could not have taken any action against H the dealer and their order was invalid, 'it is immaterial that the + G.D.A. v. BALBIR SINGH 75 respondents had acted bona fide and in the interest of preservation of A public health. Their motive may be good but their orders are illegal. They would accordingly be liable for any loss caused to the appellants by their action.' The theoretical concept that King can do no wrong has been abandoned in England itself and the State is now held responsible for tortuous act of its servants. The First Law Commission B constituted after coming into force of rhe Constitution on liability of the State in tort, observed that the old distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions should no longer be invoked to determine liability of the State. Friedmann observed: "It is now increasingly necessary to abandon the lingering fiction C of a legally indivisible State, and of a feudal conception of the Crown, and to substitute for it the principle of legal liability where the State, either directly or through incorporated public authorities, engages in activities of a commercial, industrial or managerial character. The proper test is not an impracticable D distinction between governmental and non-governmental function, but the nature and form of the. activity in question." Even Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP. AIR (1965) SC I 039 - [1965] 1 SCR 375:, (1966) 2 LLJ 583, did not provide any E immunity for tortuous acts of public servants committed in discharge of statutory function if it was not referable to sovereign power. Since house construction or for that matter any service hired by a consumer or facility availed by him is not a sovereign function of the State the ratio of Kasturi Lal could not stand in way of the Commission F awarding compensation. We respectfully agree with Mathew, J. in Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan, [1974] I SCC 690 that it is not necessary, 'to consider whether there is any rational dividing line between the so-called sovereign and proprietary or commercial functions for determining the liability of the State' (SCC p. 695, para 20). In any case the law has always maintained that the public G authorities who are entrusted with statutory function cannot act negligently. As far back as 1878 the law was succinctly explained in Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir, [1878] 3 AC 430 thus: "I take it, without citing cases, that it is now thoroughly well H 76 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R. estabtished that no action will lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised, if it be done without negligence, although it does occasion damage to anyone; but an action does lie for doing what the Legislature has authorised, if it be done negligently." Under our Constitutiop sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No func-tionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule oflaw. Each hierarchy in the Act is empowered to entertain a complaint by the consumer for value of the goods or services and compensation. The word 'compensation' is again of very D wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Act. According to dictionary it means, 'compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense;'. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Commission has been E vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to p claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him. Any other construction would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to G award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him." This Court then went on to hold as follows: "10. Who should pay the amount determined by the Commi.sSio!Her harassment and agony, the statutory authority or should it be realised from those who were responsible for it? Compensation as explained H includes both the just equivalent for loss of goods or services and y I ' G.D.A. v. BALBIR SINGH 77 also for sufferance of injustice. For instance in Civil Appeal No .... A of 1993 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 659 of 1991 the Commission directed the Bangalore Development Authority to pay Rs.2446 to the consumer for the expenses incurred by him in getting the lease-cumsale agreement registered as it was additional expenditure for alternative site allotted to him. No misfeasance was found. The moment B the authority came to know of the mistake committed by it, it took immediate action by allotting alternative site to the respondent. It was jcompensation for exact loss suffered by the respondent. It arose in due discharge of duties. For such acts or omissions the loss suffered has to be made good by the authority itself. But when the sufferance c is due to ma/a fide or oppressive or capricious acts etc. of a public servant, then the nature of liability changes. The Commission under the Act could determine such amount if in its opinion the consumer suffered injury due to what is called misfeasance of the officers by the English Courts. Even in England where award of exemplary or D aggravated damages for insult etc. to a person has now been held to be punitive, exception has been carved out if the injury is due to, ..; 'oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the Government' (Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts). Misfeasance in public office is explained by Wade in his book on Administrative E Law thus: "Even where. there is no ministerial duty as above, and even ~ where no recognised tort such as trespass, nuisance, or negligence is committed, public authorities or officers may be liable in F damages for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong-doing. There is thus a tort which has been called misfeasance in public office, and which includes malicious abuse of power, deliberate maladministration, and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury." (p.777). G The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hai/sham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, ~ (1972] AC 1027 - (1972] I All ER 801 on the principle that, 'an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating H 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R. A the strength of law'. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In Rookes v. Barnard, (1964] AC 1129 - (1964] 1 All ER 367, 4 IO it was observed by Lord Devlin, 'the B servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service'. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of powers results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against C it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public authorities D is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to E the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work cult4re and help in changing the outlook. Wade in his book F Administrative Law has observed that it is to the credit of public authorities that there are simply few reported English decisions on this form of malpractice, namely, misfeasance in public offices which includes malicious use of power, deliberate maladministration and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury. One of the reasons G H for this appears to be development of law which apart, from other factors succeeded in keeping a salutary check on the functioning in the government or semi-government offices by holding the officers personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra vires action resulting in injury or loss to a citizen by awarding damages against them. Various decisions rendered from time to time have been referred \ ;- G.D.A. v. BALBIR SINGH 79 to by Wade on Misfeasance by Public Authorities. We shall refer to A some of them to demonstrate how necessary it is for our society. In Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 Ld. Raym 938 the House of Lords invoked the principle of ubijus ibi remedium in favour of an elector wh.o was wrongfully prevented from voting and decreed the claim of damages. The ratio of this decision has been applied and extended by English B Courts in various situations. In Roncarelli v. Duplessis, (I 959) 16 DLR 2d 689 the Supreme Court of Canada awarded damages against the Prime Minister of Quebec personally for directing the cancellation of a restaurant-owner's liquor licence solely because the Iicens