IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38323 of 2008(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. MUJEEB MOOSA K.M.,S/O.K.M.MOOSA, KALODY MUTHUVIL HOUSE, PARAMBILANGADI, 11TH STANDARD STUDENT, TEAM CAPTAIN REPRESENTING VATTAPPATTU (HSS BOYS-OPPANA)-TROUPE, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL SECTION, GOVT.RAJAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTAKKAL PIN 676503,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SALAM.K, S/O.K.HYDROSE, AGED 18 YEARS, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM, 11TH STANDARD STUDENT, TEAM CAPTAIN REPRESENTING KOLKALLI(HSS BOYS)-TROUPE, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, GOVERNMENT RAJAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOTTAKKAL PIN 676 503, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.P.RAJESH(KOTTAKKAL) RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. CONVENER PROGRAME COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2008-09, MALAPPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION/JURY CHAIRMAN, MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2008-09, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, (DPI), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 38323 of 2008(K) 4. GENERAL CONVENOR, PROGRAMME COMMITTEE, 49TH KERALA STATE SCHOOL KALOTSAVAM 2008-09, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-ADPI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. TEAM MANAGER, MALAPPURAM REVENUE DISTRICT SCHOOL KALOLSAVAM 2008-09, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 38323 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Though in this writ petition, the grievance is against the result of Vattappattu and Kolkali held in connection with Malappuram Revenue District School Kalotsavam, the learned counsel is confining his submission only in relation to the result of Kolkali item. Main allegation is that the stage was in close proximity to a railway line and as a result, it is contended, that when the petitioner performed, because of the constant hooting of the train horn neither the judge nor the participants could hear the music. I am not inclined to accept the allegation regarding the stage as it cannot be of any special prejudice to the petitioner. Learned Government pleader submits that difference between the marks of first prize winner and petitioner is 5. It is also stated that no appeal has been filed. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I am not impressed with the contentions. The writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm