IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 595 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE SREE BHUVANESWARY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MANNAR, 'KOLKALI' TEAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEADER, HIRANKUMAR.H., RADHAPURAM, PERUNGELIPURAM.P.O., ENNAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.VINODKUMAR MR.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2009-2010 ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 595 of 2010-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8 th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner’s team participated in the Kolkali item in the Alappuzha Revenue District Kalolsavam 2009-2010 held o n 3.1.2010 at Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Alappuzha. The petitioner’s team was the third prize winner with A grade in the above item. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s team was the District level champion for the past 9 years and had participated in the State level competition for the past 9 years. Exts.P2 and P3 are produced in support of the above plea. The contention raised by the petitioner is that they could secure only third prize due to some technical flaws. It is averred that the stage was small and was not having the minimum prescribed area. Apart from that, coir and bricks were used to the curtain, which caused hindrance to the movement of the petitioner’s team members. It is also their case that the petitioner’s team was the first team to perform and by the time the next team came, all the objects causing obstructions were removed, so that they could play along. There is an allegation regarding the poor working of the mike system also. 2. The petitioners filed an appeal against the awarding of marks wpc 595 /2010 2 which was rejected as per Ext.P4. Aggrieved by the disposal of the appeal, this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal committee has not properly considered the contentions made by the petitioner. 4. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the appeal committee considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and entered a finding that there is no irregularity in assessing the marks in the competition. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the appeal committee which requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/