# Pushpanjali Avasthi (minor) v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52295 of 2006
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pushpanjali-avasthi-minor-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40897
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Declaration of result petitioner appeared
in High School Examination-declared
failed-prayer for re-evaluation denied-no
provision
for
re-evaluation-neither
counters affidavit filed nor answer sheet
that
of
Sansprit
produced-report
regarding missing of answer sheet and
award
of
average
marks-in
other
subjects
obtained
63%
marks-heldBoard to give 20,000/- cost for mental
agony and shock-shall be permitted to
appear in Intermediate examination 0708 even if the date had expired.

Held: Para 6

Keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner has suffered mental agony and
shock on account of being declared fail,
whereas she has actually passed the
High
School
Examination
with
first
division marks, and also considering the
fact that the petitioner has not been able
to seek admission in Class 11, this Court
has
no
option
but
to
award
compensation to her, which is assessed
at Rs.20,000/-. The Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, U.P. Allahabad is directed to
pay the same to the petitioner by a bank
draft payable in favour of the petitioner.
Such bank draft shall be sent to the
2 All] Pushpanjali Avasthi V. State of U.P. and others
397
petitioner through the College from
where she appeared in the High School
Examination, 2006 within three weeks
from today. It is further directed that the
petitioner shall be permitted to appear in
the Intermediate Examination 20072008 and her form be accepted even if
the last date has expired.

## Text

396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
provisions is wide enough to cover such
cases where the defects are not merely
jurisdictional, strictly but similarly other
defects also. Any circumstance, legal or
factual, which inhabits entertaining by the
Court of the dispute on the merits of the
case within the scope of the Section and a
liberal
touch
must
inform
the
interpretation of the Limitation Act which
deprives remedy of one who has a right.

7. Similar view has been reiterated
in Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan Vs. Food
Corporation of India & Ors., (1996) 6
SCC 101; World Tel Inc. & Anr. Vs.
Union of India & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC
513; Union of India &Ors. Vs. West
Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr (III), (2004)
3 SCC 458; and NITCO Tiles Ltd. Vs.
Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg.Assn &
Ors., (2005) 12 SC 454.

8. In view of the above, as the
learned Tribunal had not been addressed
by the petitioners for grant of benefit
under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
though it could have very safely been
advanced, we are of the considered
opinion, and it is also in the interest of
justice, that the learned Tribunal be
requested to decide the case on merit. We
have also examined the matter that in case
the petitioner is given benefit of Section
14 of Limitation Act, the . Claim Petition
filed by him, would not be barred by time.

9. Thus, in view of the above, we
allow the writ petition and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the
learned Tribunal and remand the case to
the learned Tribunal to be decided on
merit. Petition allowed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52295 of 2006

Pushpanjali Avasthi (minor) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Declaration of result petitioner appeared
in High School Examination-declared
failed-prayer for re-evaluation denied-no
provision
for
re-evaluation-neither
counters affidavit filed nor answer sheet
that
of
Sansprit
produced-report
regarding missing of answer sheet and
award
of
average
marks-in
other
subjects
obtained
63%
marks-heldBoard to give 20,000/- cost for mental
agony and shock-shall be permitted to
appear in Intermediate examination 0708 even if the date had expired.

Held: Para 6

Keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner has suffered mental agony and
shock on account of being declared fail,
whereas she has actually passed the
High
School
Examination
with
first
division marks, and also considering the
fact that the petitioner has not been able
to seek admission in Class 11, this Court
has
no
option
but
to
award
compensation to her, which is assessed
at Rs.20,000/-. The Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad, U.P. Allahabad is directed to
pay the same to the petitioner by a bank
draft payable in favour of the petitioner.
Such bank draft shall be sent to the
2 All] Pushpanjali Avasthi V. State of U.P. and others
397
petitioner through the College from
where she appeared in the High School
Examination, 2006 within three weeks
from today. It is further directed that the
petitioner shall be permitted to appear in
the Intermediate Examination 20072008 and her form be accepted even if
the last date has expired.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.K.Maurya, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents.

2. The petitioner appeared in the
High School Examination, 2006 and was
declared fail as she was shown to have
obtained only 4 marks in Sanskrit. In
other
papers
of
the
High
School
Examination, 2006 the petitioner has
obtained
reasonably
good
marks
averaging to 63%. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has done very well in Sanskrit
paper also and since there is no provision
of revaluation of marks, she has filed this
writ petition with a prayer for summoning
the answer copy of Sanskrit Papers of
High School Examination, 2006 and to
award correct marks after getting the
same re-examined.

3. This Court, vide order dated
20.9.2006, granted two weeks time to the
learned Standing Counsel for filing
counter affidavit and also to produce the
answer copy of Sanskrit papers of the
High School Examination, 2006 of the
petitioner fixing 5.10.2006 as the next
date. No counter affidavit has been filed
and when the case was taken up on
2.11.2006, the learned Standing Counsel,
appearing
for
the
respondent
no.1,
informed the Court that an enquiry in the
matter was going on, the report of which
was likely to be submitted. Accordingly,
this Court fixed 20.11.2006. On the said
date the Court directed the learned
Standing Counsel to produce the result of
the enquiry report and case was directed
to be listed today.

4. Today the learned Standing
Counsel has produced the enquiry report
and has made a statement that in the
enquiry it was found that the answer copy
of Sanskrit Paper of the petitioner was
changed and that suitable action against
the center in-charge and two Invigilators,
who were found responsible for the same,
has been taken. It has further been
submitted that as provided under the
Rules, average marks as obtained by the
petitioner in other papers, have been
awarded to her in Sanskrit paper and on
25.11.2006, the corrected mark-sheet of
the petitioner has already been sent to the
institution, from where the petitioner had
appeared in the High School Examination.

5. In such view of the matter, the
respondent-Board is directed to declare
the petitioner as having passed the High
School Examination, 2006 with first
division marks and with 63% in Sanskrit
Paper and also provide the High School
Certificate to the petitioner forthwith.

6. Keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner has suffered mental agony and
shock on account of being declared fail,
whereas she has actually passed the High
School Examination with first division
marks, and also considering the fact that
the petitioner has not been able to seek
admission in Class 11, this Court has no
option but to award compensation to her,
which is assessed at Rs.20,000/-. The
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad,
U.P.
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Allahabad is directed to pay the same to
the petitioner by a bank draft payable in
favour of the petitioner. Such bank draft
shall be sent to the petitioner through the
College from where she appeared in the
High School Examination, 2006 within
three weeks from today. It is further
directed that the petitioner shall be
permitted to appear in the Intermediate
Examination 2007-2008 and her form be
accepted even if the last date has expired.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition
stands allowed with costs. It is, however,
provided that the respondent-Board shall
be
at
liberty
to
recover
the
costs/compensation
amount
of
Rs.20,000/- from erring officers.

8. A certified copy of this order may
be given to the learned counsel for the
parties within three days on payment of
usual charges. Petition allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No.247459
of 2006
IN
Second Appeal No. 1540 of 1982

Ram Manorath and others ...Appellants
Versus
Surya Pal and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava
Sri Radhey Shyam
Sri K.S. Misra
Sri Rajesh Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.G. Srivastava
Sri Sankatha Rai
Sri Vinod Kumar Rai
Sri Vijay Kumar Rai
Sri Sumiti Sachan
Sri Ashok Pandey
Sri L.K. Tripathi

Order 47 Rule I-Review ApplicationSecope thereof-explained-second Appeal
decided on consideration the sale deed
executed
in
violation
of
provisions
section 5 C(11_ of Consolidation of
Holdings Act-Review on the ground the
land in question being abadi landexcluded from consideration operation
burning example of apparent error on
the fact of record-held-good ground for
Review.

Held: Para 15

In view of above, in the present case, it
is an error apparent on the face of the
record which could not be noticed at the
time of hearing which also goes to the
root of the matter and this important
question of law in the undisputed fact
was not brought to the notice of the
Court at the time when hearing of the
Second Appeal took place, this Court
considers
it
a
sufficient
reason
to
entertain Review Application.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1971 Alld-87

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. This Review Application has been
filed to review my judgment dated
8.12.2004
on
the
ground
that
no
permission
of
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation was necessary to execute
sale deed in respect of a land which was
already excluded from the consolidation
scheme at the initial sage of consolidation
as is clear from Exhibit 27-C and further
that the execution of a sale deed of entire