IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37826 of 2009(W)
1. KALWA JAMAL, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
3. GENERAL CONVENER,
4. GENERAL CONVENER,
5. GENERAL CONVENER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :01/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 37826 of 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated, this the 1st day of January, 2009
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