IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37323 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RESHMA.P.R., 15 YEARS, D/O.REMESH.P.N. REP. BY HER FATHER.MR.REMESH.P.N. PAKKATHU HOUSE, NO.G-48/2, POLICE QUARTERS COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. GENERAL CONVENOR, KERALA KALOLSAVAM 2008-2009 KOTTAYAM EAST SUB DISTRICT KOTTAYAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE, KOTTAYAM EAST SUB DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM-2008-2009. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37323 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a participant in the competition for group dance held as part of the Kottayam East Sub District Kalolsavam. One other team, which participated in the said item, was awarded the first place. The petitioner challenged the same before the appellate committee. It was contended that the stage setting was quite inadequate. Some tables were arranged in a haphazard manner and the students participants were asked to perform the item on the said stage. It is further contended that the Judges were also not eligible to sit as Judges. A perusal of Ext.P3 would show that the appeal preferred by the petitioner's team was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate committee has not considered any one of the grounds urged. I would have considered this, had the petitioner produced a copy of the appeal. The appeal preferred was in the prescribed form. Unless the petitioner is able to substantiate that the contentions which are urged in the writ petition, were also urged in the appeal, it is not W.P.(C).NO.37323/08 :: 2 :: possible for this court to appreciate the contention that the appellate committee has failed to consider the appeal on merits. 2. Further, the ground for interference in a matter of this kind, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are extremely narrow. The first contention taken up by the petitioner regarding the inadequacy of the stage would obviously have been applicable to the other teams also. The second contention relates to the eligibility of the Judges. This is a matter for subjective satisfaction and unless there is any striking irregularity in the constitution of the Judges' panel, it would not be appropriate for this court to interfere with the assessment or relative merits by the Judges. I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge