The petitioner is the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Youth Welfare Board which conducts Keralotsavam, every year. As the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Youth Welfare Board, the petitioner is also the Convenor of Keralotsavam, 2009. The petitioner states that the Manual issued by the Kerala State Youth Welfare Board for the conduct of Keralotsavam, 2009 provides for an appeal to a jury at various stages of the competitions which are held at the Panchayat, District and State level, that the Manual stipulates that all disputes arising out of the conduct of Keralotsavam, 2009 shall be within the jurisdiction of this Court, that the participants are bound by the stipulations in the Manual, that they are therefore not entitled to institute suits in the civil court and that they have by accepting the stipulations in the Manual waived their right to move the civil court seeking redressal of their grievances. The petitioner proceeds to state that during the previous year when Keralotsavam, 2008 was conducted, the participants at the District level competition who had secured the second place in Kasaragod district filed a suit, obtained an interim order of mandatory injunction directing the Organising Committee of Keralotsavam, 2008 to permit them to participate in the District level competition, that though the said team participated in the district level competition, the suit was thereafter dismissed as not pressed and that if suits are entertained by the civil courts and interim orders passed, it will upset the schedule of the competitions. It is stated that as a result thereof, the organizers are put to great hardship. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks the following relief:

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order of direction, compelling the respondent to issue a direction to the civil court and Tribunals under the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court, that Hon’ble High Court of Kerala alone is having jurisdiction to decide any dispute preferred by any party with respect to Keralotsavam – 2009;”

2. This writ petition was filed on 23.11.2009. The Registry raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereupon submitted that the writ petition may be placed before the Court for hearing. The writ petition was accordingly posted before me on 30.11.2009. On that day, I directed the Registry to number the writ petition and to send it up for admission on 1.12.2009 with the observation that the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition can be decided at the time of admission. The writ petition was accordingly numbered and it was posted for admission on 1.12.2009. On that day, I appointed Sri. P. Gopal, Advocate of this Court as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The writ petition was thereafter taken up for hearing and was heard on 7.12.2009.

3. I heard Sri. P.K. Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P. Gopal, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the participants in Keralotsavam, 2009 at the three levels are bound by the stipulations in the Manual which inter alia stipulates that all disputes in connection with Keralotsavam, 2009 shall be within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the participants are bound by the terms and stipulates in the Manual and can participate in the competitions only in accordance with the terms and stipulations therein, they should be deemed to have waived their right to move any forum other than this Court to redress their grievances. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.F. Charitable Trust, Hyderabad v. Special Deputy Collector (General), Land Acquisition, Hyderabad and others (AIR 1992 AP 130) to contend that t