IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35758 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.ABDUL ROUF, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.K.I.ISMAIL, HYDER VALAPPIL HOUSE, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 2. M.A.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 3. C.A.ABDUL NIZAR, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 4. T.K.AHAMMED KABEER, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 5. MUHAMMED AZHARUDEEN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 6. H.M.NOUFAL, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.HASSAINAR, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 7. P.A.ABDUL ROUF, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MAHMOOD, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 8. C.M.IQBAL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 9. T.V.AZHARUDHEEN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.HAMEED, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 10. K.V.JUNAID, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 11. P.K.SAFEER, S/O.KHADER, RESIDING AT UDMA, UDMA.P.O, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 12. K.S.SHABEER, S/O.SHAFI, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CONVENER (MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE YOUTH WELFARE BOARD) THE KERALA STATE KERALOLSAVAM ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, CAMP AT DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE COMPLEX, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGODE. 3. THE CONVENER ( SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT) THE KASARGODE DISTRICT KERALOLSAVAM ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARGODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35758 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners participated in the Grama Panchayat level competitions held in connection with Keralolsavam 2009. They secured first place in the Panchayat level competitions in the event, Kolkali. The petitioners thereafter participated in the Taluk level competitions. In the said competitions they secured second place with A grade. As per the manual governing Keralolsavam 2009 only the first place winner in the Taluk level can participate in the District level competitions. The first petitioner challenged the award of marks to the team in which he was a member by filing O.S. No.397 of 2009 in the Court of the Munsiff of Hosdurg. In that suit, the first petitioner filed I.A. No.2613 of 2009 for an interim mandatory injunction directing the third respondent and others to permit him to participate in the District level competitions. On that application, the Munsiff Court passed Ext.P1 interim order directing the third respondent and others to permit the petitioner to participate in the District level competitions. Ext.P1 interim order was passed on W.P.(C) No. 35758/09 2 21.11.2009. The District level competitions were held on 22.11.2009. The first petitioner and others were not permitted to participate in the competitions notwithstanding Ext.P1 order passed by the civil court. The first petitioner was informed that as per the manual, the court competent to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes arising in the conduct of Keralolsavam, 2009, is this Court and that the order passed by the Munsiff Court is without jurisdiction. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the stand taken by the third respondent in Ext.P3. The petitioners challenge Exts.P3 and seek a direction to the respondents to permit them to participate in the State level competitions scheduled to be held between 18.12.2009 and 22.12.2009. 2. The petitioners contend that as the manual governing the conduct of Keralolsavam, 2009 is not statutory in nature, the stipulation therein that this Court alone will have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes arising in the conduct of the festival, is unenforcible and that the stipulations in the manual cannot and does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Poonam Verma v. DDA W.P.(C) No. 35758/09 3 (2007 (13) SCC 154) wherein it was held that guidelines which are not statutory in nature are not enforceable. 3. Heard Sri. Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials placed on record. The manual governing Keralolsavam 2009 stipulates that disputes arising out of the conduct of Keralolsavam 2009 can be entertained and resolved only by this Court. The manual framed by the organisers of Keralolsavam, 2009 does not partake the character of a statute. Nor is it one framed and issued under any statute. The stipulations therein cannot therefore oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes arising out of the conduct of Keralolsavam, 2009. The Apex Court has in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1969 SC 78) held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is all embracing except to the extent it is excluded by an express provision of law or by clear intendment arising from such law. Therefore, it has to be necessarily held that the stipulations in the manual cannot oust the jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon disputes arising out of the conduct of the Keralolsavam, 2009. The stand taken by the third respondent W.P.(C) No. 35758/09 4 in Ext.P3 cannot therefore be sustained. 4. However that by itself cannot in my opinion entitle the petitioners to contend that they are entitled to participate in the State level competitions merely for the reason that had the third respondent complied with Ext.P1 interim order, the petitioners could have participated in the District level competitions. This Court cannot proceed on the basis that had the petitioners participated they would have secured the first place. The mere fact that petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to participate in the District level competitions cannot be a reason to hold that had they participated in the District level competitions they would have secured the first place thereby enabling them to participate in the State level competitions. It is not in dispute that first place winner in the District level competitions alone can participate in the State level competitions. The team which won the first place in the District level competitions is not on the party array. Therefore this Court cannot declare that the petitioners should be deemed to have won the first place in the District level competitions and prevent the team which won the first place after participating in the District level competitions, from W.P.(C) No. 35758/09 5 participating in the State level competitions. Besides, if the petitioners are also permitted to participate in the State level competitions, it will cause serious heart burn to the members of the team which won the second place in the District level competitions. They are also not on the party array. I am therefore of the opinion that even though the stand taken by the third respondent in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained, in the light of the facts noticed above, it would not be just or proper for this Court to direct that the petitioners should be permitted to participate in the State level competitions. I accordingly hold that notwithstanding the illegality committed by the third respondent, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps