IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 813 of 2011(B) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. BALAGOPAL.E.B. (MINOR) REP.BY HIS MOTHER RATHI BABU ESWARAMANGALATH, P.O.KOTHAPARAMBU,KODUNGALLUR. 2. AKHIL PRADEEP KUMAR (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER PRADEEP KUMAR, KUTTIPARAMBIL, P.O.PULLUT,KODUNGALLUR. 3. SANDEEP (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER DILEEP V.K,VALIYAPRAMBIL PO, KOOLIMUTTAM, MATHILAKAM,KODUNGALLUR. 4. KRISHNANRAJ K.P, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER PREMARAJAN K.B, KUTTIPARAMBIL, KOTHAPARMABU,KODUNGALLUR. 5. NIVED NATH A.R, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER MEENA, ADIPARAMBIL, MATHILAKAM,THRISSUR DIST. 6. JIDHEESH J.J, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER ASHA, THEKKOOTU HOUSE,KODUNGALLUR PO,THRISSUR DIST. 7. MINUL T.V, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, VIGITHA,THAVAYAPURATH, PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DIST. 8. DIBIN P.M, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER DIVYA PADIYATH HOUSE P.O.VALLIVATTOM,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN svs ...........2/-... ...2... WP(C).No. 813/2011(B) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. THE GENERAL CONVENER DEPOUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, THRISSUR. 4. THE JOINT GENERAL CONVENER THRISSUR REVENUE DISTRICT KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM,THRISSUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 813 of 2011 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Thrissur Sub District Level Kalotsavam, petitioners participated in 'Parichamuttu'. They were given the 3rd prize with 'A Grade'. They filed an appeal, complaining of the malfunctioning of the sound system, but the appeal was rejected by Ext.P2 order. It is challenging the above, this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that there was no report either from the Programme Convenor or anybody else regarding the malfunctioning of the sound system. It is also submitted that the 1st prize winner secured 250 marks, 2nd prize winner secured 232 marks and the petitioner secured only 220 marks. 3. Eventhough the petitioner relies on Ext.P1 to contend that the sound system was not properly functioning, in view of the absence of any report from the Programme W.P.(C) No.813/2011 : 2 : Convenor or anybody else in support of the case canvassed by the petitioner, I am not persuaded to act upon Ext.P1 and conclude that there was malfunctioning of the sound system. If that be so, Ext.P2 order passed by the appellate authority cannot be interfered with. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks