Negligence in carrying out a court order can justify compensation under the law of torts, even if the statutory provisions do not explicitly provide for such compensation.

Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Sri V.S. Shukla, learned standing counsel for State of U.P., the petitioner in this writ petition.

2. The State of U.P. through the Collector, Fetehpur, and the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, through its Secretary have filed this writ petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 1.4.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehpur, in Original Suit No. 593 of 1991, awarding Rs. 12,500, as half of the compensation claimed by the plaintiff for delay in declaring her result of the High School examination, in terms of directions of this Court; and the judgment and order dated 27.7.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Fatehpur dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002.

3. Since the claim for damages in the suit was only for Rs. 25,000, a second appeal is not provided against the judgment of the appellate court, in terms of amended Section 102 of C.P.C., which has come into force with effect from 1.7.2002.

4. The facts giving rise to this writ petition in brief are that Ms. Nekhat Parveen daughter of Sri Luqoan Jafri appeared in High School Examination of 1990, as a regular candidate of Nirankari Girls Inter College, Fatehpur (Group A), with English, Home Science, Science (I), Social Science and Civics as her subjects. She secured 41 marks in Hindi, 39 in English, 54 in Home Science, 35 in Science (I), 44 in Social Science and 31 in Civics, out of 100 in each subject. The minimum pass marks in aggregate were 33%. The petitioner had secured 33% in aggregate. However, since she secured 31 marks in Civics, she was declared to have failed in the examination. She filed Writ Petition No. 20269 of 1990, which was allowed on 23.10.1990 with the findings that in accordance with calendar of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, of the year 1966-67 she was entitled to grace marks. The calendar provided that where a candidate has secured less marks in one of the subjects and has an aggregate of 33% marks in all the subjects, he is entitled to grace marks to pass the examination. This Court directed the Board to give her grace marks in Civics and to declare her result within one week, and to hand over mark-sheet to her. The Board did not declare the result, on which she filed a Contempt Petition No. 917 of 1990. In the counter-affidavit, it was stated that the order of the High Court was complied with on 29.12.1990, and the respondents offered unconditional apologies. The Court found that the order has been complied with and after accepting the apologies on 23.1.1991, the contempt petition was dismissed.

5. Ms. Nekhat Parveen filed Original Suit No. 593 of 1991 alleging that the High Court had directed to award grace marks and issuance of fresh mark- sheet within one week of the judgment dated 23.10.1990. The Board took more than two months time to comply with the order. The mark-sheet was issued on 30.12.1990, on account of which she could not get confirmed admission in Class XI and that when she was ultimately given admission, she had suffered in her studies. It was also pleaded by her that on account of negligence of the Board, which was not bona fide, she suffered harassment, anxiety and mental tension, which affected her health, eye sight and memory. She claimed compensation quantified at Rs. 25,000 from the Board.

6. The trial court after taking documentary and oral evidence including the statement of the plaintiff, Principal of the College, Dr. Aman Ullah Khan, Ophthalmologist and Dr. Jamat Ahmad, Optometrist, as P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Sri Pawanesh Kumar, Secretary of the Board and Sri Amarnath Verma as D.Ws. 1 and 2, held that the order of the High Court was not carried out within the prescribed period, on account of which plaintiff suffered mental tension and anxiety, and had suffered from severe headaches. The stress and anxiety, affected her eye sight. The trial court computed the damages with the help of the evidence and hel