IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 612 of 2011(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VINAYAN P., CONVENER, SCHOOL KALOLSAVA COMMITTEE, SNH HSS, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, TIRUR. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GENERAL CONVENER, KERALA SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CONVENER, SCHOOL KALOLSAVA COMMITTEE, GOVT. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CONVENER, SCHOOL KALOLSAVA COMMITTEE, CBHSS, VALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 612 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the Parappanangadi Sub District Level Kalolsavam, petitioner's team participated in Drama Competition. They were awarded 3rd prize. Petitioner filed an appeal complaining that the venue was changed at the last minute and that the sound system was not proper. It was also complained that there was power failure affecting their performance. Despite the contentions, his appeal was rejected without considering any of the grounds as per Ext.P2 order. It is challenging Ext.P2 and seeking a direction to permit the petitioner's team to participate in the Revenue District Competition, the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the first and second prize winners had secured 251 and 225 marks respectively, whereas the petitioner's team had secured only 198 marks. As far as the allegation regarding power failure is concerned, learned Government Pleader submits that a report was obtained from the Stage Manager, who has denied the said WPC No. 612/11 :2 : allegation. In so far as the change of venue is concerned, learned Government Pleader submits that due to the circumstances prevailing, such a stage was necessitated and that among the five contestants, nobody other than the petitioner had raised any complaint in that behalf. 3. First of all, there is vide disparity in the marks obtained by the petitioner's team as compared to first and second prize winners. Secondly, first and second prize winners who will be prejudiced by any order obtained by the petitioner have not been impleaded in this writ petition. Thirdly, the allegation of power failure put forward by the petitioner has been denied by the respondents and there is nothing to reject the said version. That apart, even if there was change of venue, since no other participant has complained about it and as no prejudice, special to the petitioner, could have been caused, I see no reason to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp