Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17034
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
ADITHYA.B
– Appellant
Versus
THE GENERAL CONVENER – Respondent
WA 2020 2022
B.RENJITHKUMAR
Judicial review does not encompass factual disputes arising from the adjudication of committees in competitions unless serious procedural violations are evident.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Participation in School Kalolsavam - Article 226 - The court upheld the lower judgment refusing to entertain the writ for reevaluation of a dance competition result, emphasizing the appellate committee's procedural integrity and the importance of factual matters in judicial review.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant participated in a dance competition, securing second place with a small mark difference from the first prize. After heavy rainfall led to alleged defects during performance, the appellant appealed the results, which was dismissed for lack of specific grievances addressed in official orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grounds raised in the appeal were factual and that a writ petition under Article 226 was not suitable for addressing such factual disputes, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal regarding the dance competition result was justified under the parameters of judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial review does not extend to rehearing factual matters that fall within the purview of the facts determined by an appellate committee unless there are clear procedural irregularities.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment dated 21.12.2022 refusing to exercise power of judicial review in respect of the participation of the petitioner in the School Kalolsavam.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had participated in the Kuchipudy dance in the Alappuzha District School Kalolsavam conducted on 07.12.2022 and had secured second prize. It is stated that the first prize is shared by two participants that is Meenakshy A.V and Parvathi Krishna who obtained 265 and 264 marks respectively. It is stated that the difference between the marks awarded to the appellant and Parvathy Krishna was only 0.33% and that the appellant had preferred an appeal specifically pointing out that there were defects in the stage which occurred due to heavy rain fall when the appellant had participated in the competition. It is submitted that Ext.P2 does not refer to the specific allegation raised by the appellant.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits; on instructions that there were 114 appeals submitted in respect of the Alappuzha District School Kalolsavam and that 12 of such appeals had been allowed. It is submitted that the appellate committee had watched the video recording and had entered the results of the appeals and long orders could not be recorded due to the sheer number of appeals which had to be considered by them.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is liable to re-considered.
In view of the fact that the state Kalolsavam is commencing on 03.01.2023 and since it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the appeal committee consists of 8 members and the Chairman and since it is not possible to reconstitute the committee within the short time, we are of the opinion that the judgment requires no interference. The grounds raised in the Writ Appeal being factual in nature, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the matters cannot be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India appears to be well founded. The Writ Appeal fails, and is hence dismissed.
