“47. Dr Rajeev Dhawan, Senior Advocate, argued on behalf of the respondents that the public law remedies by way of writ petitions are normally limited to giving directions, providing interim and final injunctive reliefs and quashing decisions which are violative of the fundamental rights or violation of law. He submits that the scope of providing damages in public law is limited to specific situations and circumstances where the State deliberately deprives a person of his personal liberty in cases such as causing death, grievous injury, custodial violence and the like. He submits that the judgments already cited by this Court in its earlier judgment dated 21-2-2000 (sic 29-2-2000 [Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn. v. Union of India, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 216] ), namely, Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India [Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 407] ; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798] ; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K [Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, (1985) 4 SCC 677 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 47] ; People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar [People's Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 265 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 58] ; People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commr. [People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commr., (1989) 4 SCC 730 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 75] ; Saheli v. Commr. of Police [Saheli v. Commr. of Police, (1990) 1 SCC 422 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 145] , Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527] , Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. [Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P., (1994) 6 SCC 565 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 29] ; Inder Singh v. State of Punjab [Inder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 702 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 586 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 857] ; Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab [Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 742 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 858] ; Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. [Ajab Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 3 SCC 521 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 718] related to cases where the State had deliberately deprived a person of his personal liberty or related to cases of causing death, grievous injury, custodial violence, etc. by the public authorities. It is submitted by him that the remedy of damages in public law is not available for each and every transgression of fundamental rights and thus even if there is an error arising out of an arbitrary action or denial of permission which may result in damages of crores or there is a transgression of freedom of religion or any