Liability of Vicarious Liability in Trespass to Chattels: A Case Study of K. Bharat Kumar v State of A.P.

Okay, let's get real here - Vicarious liability is a game-changer in Tort Law, right? So, when I think of trespass to chattels, I instantly think of K. Bharat Kumar v State of A.P. Now, here's the twist - the Court held that there was no liability on the part of the State for the actions of its servant in trespassing to chattels.

But, can someone explain me why? Why should we not hold the State liable in this case? They are vicariously responsible for the actions of their servants, aren't they? So, can we just not just apply the principle of vicarious liability here and be done with it? Can we? Or is there something I'm missing?