IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 101 of 2009(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. RASMI M.NAIR, REP.BY FATHER, D/O.D.MADHUSOODANAN, TC 41/1672(1) SIVA GANAGA, KURIATHY, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PARVATHY.G.S. REP.BY FATHER D/O.GOPAKUMAR, TC.18/309/3,GOKULAM, PANNAKKAMUGAL, ARAMADA P.O.THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RESHMA DAS, REP.BY FATHER D/O.G.MADHAVA DAS, TC.24/1512,LAKSHMI VILAS, KANNETTUMUKKU, THYCAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ATHIRA SURESH, REP.BY FATHER D/O.SURESHKUMARAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA, VAILIKKADA, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. NAIR KALLYANI SURESH, REP.BY FATHER, D/O.BINDU SURESH, TC.17/662 POOJAPPURA P.O. THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. ARUNIMA G.P. REP.BY FATHER, D/O.R.N.AMBIKA PRASAD, TC.17/942(2) VIDYATHIRAJA NAGAR, CHADAIYARA, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. ATHULYA RAMESH, REP.BY FATHER, D/O.RAMESH KUMAR, TC.18/1158,TAGORE ROAD, THRIKKANNAPURAM, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN WP(C).No. 101 of 2009(K) RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTORATE PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2008-09,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.101 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a participant in the Group Dance competition held in connection with Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District School Kalolsavam. They were granted Second prize with A grade. Aggrieved by the same they preferred an appeal and the same was rejected vide Exhibit P3. The main allegation is that the light and sound system made available at the time of performance was defective. Reading of Exhibit P3 shows that there was no report from the stage manger corroborating the case of the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any material contention, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the appellate committee. The writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm