IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2003 Miss Nameeta Kashinath Hatipkar. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and others. ... Respondents. R.D.Suryawanshi for the petitioner. Mrs.Deepa Chawan i/b. M/s.Little & Co. for respondent No.2. C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent No.4. for the respondent. CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 25th February 2009. DATED: 25th February 2009. DATED: 25th February 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused petition. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition since she was not given hall-ticket to appear for the H.S.C. examination finding some irregularities in her domicile certificate. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner appeared for H.S.C. examination in the month of March, 2002, however, her results were withheld for about a year. 3. The petitioner submits that because of the negligence on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 she lost her valuable year as such she is entitled to claim damages from respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the only surviving prayer in the petition is for direction to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of one academic year, mental agony, harassment and hardship and Rs.30,000/- for the expenses incurred by the petitioner to pursue the litigation. 5. So far as this prayer is concerned, it will not be possible for this Court to quantify damages in exercise of writ jurisdiction since quantification and adjudication thereof would require adjudication of disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. In the above view of the matter, we are not inclined to grant this prayer. So far as the substantive prayer made in this petition is concerned, it does not survive since the petitioner has received that relief. Needless to mention that it would be open - 3 - for the petitioner to set up claim for damages before the appropriate court. All rival contentions in that behalf are kept open. 7. Petition is disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)