IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2010 / 11TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37826 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KALWA JAMAL, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR), D/O. JAMAL MUHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER LAILA JAMAL, W/O. JAMAL MUHAMMED "JAMANSION", THRIKANDIYOOR AMSOM, ANNARA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. GENERAL CONVENER, SCHOOL KALOLSAVOM 2009 - 2010, FATHIMA MATHA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TIRUR. 4. GENERAL CONVENER, TIRUR SUB DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2009-2010, G.M.U.P.SCHOOL, B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR. 5. GENERAL CONVENER, MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 2009-2010, CHUNKATHARA MARTHOMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHUNKATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 37826 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 1st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer in the Writ Petition is for an opportunity to permit the petitioner to participate for 'Bharatanatyam' in the Revenue District Level Youth Festival (Malappuram). On the basis of the records produced, the petitioner contends that she occupies a very high pedestral in the performance of Bharatanatyam, Mohiniyattam, Kuchuppudi etc. and that she has won many a laurel in various competitions. The case brought in the Writ Petition is that because of a mistake committed by the 3rd respondent, she could not participate in the Sub District Level competitions for Bharatanatyam and because of this, she is virtually prevented from participating in the District level competitions. It is because of this, that she had preferred an appeal as borne by Ext.P17 which is stated as kept in cold storage. The petitioner has also stated in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition that she has moved the Civil Court by filing O.S.364/2009 (before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur) on 21st December, 2009 seeking for a mandatory injunction to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to participate in the Bharatanatyam competition in the District Level and WP(C) No. 37826 of 2009 2 that the learned Munsiff issued notice in the I.A. and the case was adjourned to 31.02.2010, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as well who asserts that there is absolutely no merits or bonafides in the Writ Petition. The contention raised by the petitioner that she could not and did not admittedly participate for the Sub District Level competition in Bharatanatyam itself is the end of it. Unless and until the candidate secures first place in the Sub District Level, he or she can't be permitted to participate in the District level competition; submits the Senior Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded during the course of hearing that, even though Ext.17 appeal was preferred, no fees as prescribed have been paid for consideration of the appeal and the reason stated is that the petitioner was misguided in this regard, as to the scope of challenge by way of appeal. 4. Obviously, the petitioner has not availed the appellate remedy by approaching the appellate authority by remitting the necessary fees for entertaining the appeal, if she were actually aggrieved in any manner. That apart, she has also approached the Civil Court for redressing her WP(C) No. 37826 of 2009 3 grievance. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner did not participate in the Sub District Level competition in Bharatanatyam, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that she might be permitted to participate in the District level competitions stated as scheduled on 04.01.2010. There is absolutely no merit in the Writ Petition. No interference is called for and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc