E’E’l‘i'l‘IONER RESPONDENTS EEGH CGURT GF‘ CHEATTISGARH AT BEJASPER WRIT PETITION No. 1923 of 26m Ku SaarOJam Vadu D/o Arun Kumar Yadu aged about 17 vears [he petmoner 1s a minor and therefore fiiing her peiitirm through her father Shri ARun Kumar Yaxlsu S/o Kodan Lal Yadu R/o of Wart No. 1, Dmgergaolz, Distt. Rajnandgaon. p... Bhopal h) VERSUS . State of Madhya Pradesh 1mm gn The Qecretary, Sdioo} Eduuauon Dupartment Vallabh Bhawan S’taie of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretaw School Education Dopartment, D.K.S. Bhawah: Raipur. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, M.P. Bhopal. Virendra Nath Lohiya, Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Dorigergaon, Dist‘t. Rajnandgaon (CG) Sourahh Lohiya S/o Rajendra Nath Lohiya, R/o C/o Respondent No 4 Govt Higher §econdarv §chool Dongergaon Distt Rajnandgaon WR! PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 Or THE COES ITUTIOV OF TNDIA SB Hon’ble S‘m Satin}; Ix Aamhotn J. Present: Shri Ananti Dadariya. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Raj endra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2 Shri R K Tiwari Advocate for the respondent No 4 and 5 (Passed on 13 E day of October, 2008) ORAL ORBER The petitioner, in this petition tiled on 26.09.2001, seeks following reliefs: “(D That the responcient N. 3 be directed to supply the correct mark-sheet ofthe petitioner on the basis ofher correct Roll No., Registration No. and the marks which she ha secured. (ii) The Respondent No. 1 and 3 be directed to make suitable enquiry in the petitioner’s case and she be given correct marks on the basis other ‘Answer Copies’ and her performance. (iii) The Respondent No. 3 be directed to produce the entire originai ieemd of the petitioner pertaining to hei Roll N Registration No Ta‘mlatior Register and her answer copies of ali the subjects (1v) The petitioner be aiiowed exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lac on account of the harassment which has been done by the respondents. (V) It is respecthi'iiy prays that a suitable enquiry be ordered aoainst the Respondent No 3 and Respondent No 4 having harassed L e petitioner at this young ace and dragged her to the Hon’ble Court (v1) Cost ot the petition be aiso awarded to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner, during pendency ofthe petition was given correct mark-sheet containing correct r011 number: registration number and tabulation register, as is evident from the avennent made by the respondent No. 4 in its atiidavit dated 28. 10.2001. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that the numbers of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5‘ were mixed and on objection raised by the petitioner, the same was corrected and the correct mark-sheet was given to the petitioner as welt as to the respondent No. 5. Thus, at this stage, nothing survives for adjudication. Shri Dadariya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss as the Higher Secondary School Certificate examination (MHZ) was held in the year 2()01 and the petitioner was supplied the corrected mark-sheet in February, 2003, as per memo dated 12.02.2003 (Annemre R1} }. 5. Be that as it may, as and when the mistake was pointed out by the petitioner, the respondent authorities took immediate action for correcting the roll- it number, registration number etc in the mark-sheets and the same was provided to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5. In the process, there was some delay, for that the petitioner ciaims exemplary compensation. Ifthe petitioner has suit‘ered loss or damages on account of delay in supply. of correct mark~sheet, the proper course would be to take recourse to proper jurisdictional civil court. This Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be in a position to decide the disputes as it is a question of facts which needs proper adjudication by the jurisdictional civil court. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps, if so advised, for compensation before the appropriate, jurisdictional court. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition stands dismissed. No order asto costs. 8. Consequently, pending applications, ifany, also standgdismissed. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge