High Court Kerala High Court

Anjali Krishna.K.U.(Minor) vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Anjali Krishna.K.U.(Minor) vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 861 of 2010(G)


1. ANJALI KRISHNA.K.U.(MINOR)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN, APPEAL COMMITTEE

3. THE GENERAL CONVENER (DPI),

4. THE GENERAL CONVENER (ADPI),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.RAJESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :11/01/2010

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       W.P.(C) No. 861 of 2010-G
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010.

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein was a participant in the item Nadodinritham in

the Thrissur Revenue District Youth Festival. It is the allegation of the

petitioner that because of the poor construction of the stage, the platform

was seen uneven and during the dance performance the wooden plank began

to dislocate and that made the petitioner to perform the dance in a shaking

platform. A complaint was made before the programme committee and

accordingly, they rearranged the platform for the remaining participants.

The petitioner was adjudged second place with A grade and the

person who was placed as first, got 250 marks. Relying upon various

certificates produced by the petitioner, it is submitted that the result is

liable to be interfered with and the rejection of the appeal as per Ext.P12 is

also bad.

2. It is clear that there is a difference of 16 marks between the

petitioner’s team and the winning team. The appeal committee found that

there was no report from the stage manager about the technical faults also.

In these circumstances, the appeal was rejected.

wpc /2010 2

There is no scope for interference by this Court in exercise of the

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ

petition is dismissed.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/