Kerala High Court
Soumi Jose Kokkad vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2014
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph, K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/1ST MAGHA, 1935
WA.No. 124 of 2014 () IN WP(C).1698/2014
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1698/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 17-01-2014
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
-------------------
SOUMI JOSE KOKKAD, AGED 37 YEARS
HSST, TEAM MANAGER
SACRED HEARTS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THEVARA
COCHIN 682013
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
2. PROGRAMME CONVENOR,
ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 682032
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682032
4. APPEAL COMMITEE,
ERNAKULAM REVENUE DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM 682032
5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 682030
6. PROGRAMME CONVENOR,
KERALA STATE KALOSAVAM, PALAKKAD 678045
7. GROUP DANCE TEAM,
MOOTHAKUNNAM S.N.H.S.S. REPRESENTED BY THEIR
TEA MANAGER 683516
W.A.No.124/2014 2
8. GROUP DANCE TEAM,
ST.THERESA''S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY
THEIR TEAM MANAGER 682034
ADDL.9TH RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED:
9. K.P.GOPINATHAN,, AGED 50 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 21
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.SYAM KUMAR FOR R1 TO R5
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.M.JOSEPH & K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.A.No.124 OF 2014
-------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2014
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~ K.M.Joseph, J.
Appellant is the writ petitioner. Writ Petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P9 directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P8 appeal to allow provisionally participate the petitioner's Group Dance team and also directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of corruption, bribery and illegalities in the conduct of the Kerala State Kalolsavam.
2. The Writ Petition is filed making the following brief allegations.
"Petitioner is the team manager who is representing the Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School Team for Group dance consisting of Soumya Theresa Sajan, Sandra Jayan, Misha Rose.K.M., Aneeta Regina (all from Std.XII), W.A.No.124/2014 2 Shifara.P.S., Ashika K.I., and Soubhagya Hegde all from Std XI. They are aggrieved by the arbitrary manner in which their appeal against the verdict in event Group Dance at the Ernakulam Revenue District Kalolsavam has been rejected by the fourth respondent. Team of Sacred Hearts Higher Secondary School, headed by Soumya Theresa Sajan of which the petitioner is the team manager participated in Group Dance at the Ernakulam Revenue District Kalolsavam on 08.1.2014. The event was conducted in the Muvattupuzha town Hall Auditorium. The team out of which 4 of them are XIIth Std. students performed Group dance W.A.No.124/2014 3 extremely well. They have been practising for the event for days and months together after absenting themselves from regular classes. The team performed extremely well and received accolades from the audience and other teams. Unfortunately when the results were out, the petitioner's team was placed 4th. Parents of the participants of the petitioner's team had come to know from reliable sources before the commencement of the event that the first and second places in this event have already been 'sold' to Moothakunnam S.N.H.S.S and St.Teresa's Ernakulam respectively. Immediately the parents of the participants and the petitioner W.A.No.124/2014 4 represented to the second and third respondents vide Ext.P1 and P2 representation. But the second and third respondents simply passed sarcastic comments at the parents and students and belittled them. Event took place and the results were predicted. The first place went to Moothakunnam S.N.H.S.S and the second place went to St.Teresa's, Ernakulam. All these aspects including the injustice meted out in other events had been published in leading newspapers (Exts.P6 and P7). Petitioner's school leader had given a detailed representation to the third and fifth respondents (Exts.P3 and P4) and the parents, teachers and participants W.A.No.124/2014 5 of the petitioner's school had brought the injustice, corruption and bribery by the judges at the Ernakulam Revenue District Kalolsavam to the notice of Mr.Hybi Eden MLA who had forwarded/intimated to the third respondent vide Ext.P5 letter to look into the allegations and address the same effectively. The third respondent who is holding the most responsible post in the conduct of this mega event, has not raised his single finger in this aspect inspite of repeated requests from the participants, teachers, parents and even the People's representative. Petitioner's team preferred Ext.P8 appeal against the result on 8.1.2014. They were called for hearing on W.A.No.124/2014 6 11.1.2014. Ext.P9 order has been passed in total violation of G.O.(MS) 338/2012/DPI,dated 18.10.2012 passed by the first respondent. As per the above G.O., it has been specifically stated that appeals shall be heard and disposed of within 2 days of presenting the appeal. Though the petitioner's team was called for hearing on 11.1.2014, Ext.P9 rejecting the appeal was purposely passed only on 16.1.2014, leaving only one working day prior to the commencement of the Kerala State Kalolsavam so that the participants find it difficult to agitate/challenge the appellant order before any Court of Law. Petitioner managed to get the order this morning W.A.No.124/2014 7 and is challenging Ext.P9 order vide this Writ Petition."
3. Writ Petition was dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel the appellant would of course point out that they had information that the 7th and 8th respondent will be placed first and second as the judges have already been sold. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent Deputy Director did not interfere with the matter despite giving representations before him to change the Judges.
5. The learned Government Pleader would point out that though allegations of corruption are raised, specific allegations are not made and more over the Judges are not made the parties. It is also noted by the learned Single Judge that though the allegations are made Judges are not made parties.
6. We must not over look the limits of judicial W.A.No.124/2014 8 review. Allegations of malafides or corruption are easily made but it must be established. In this case, the appellant has not chosen to implead those persons who would be affected by any directions which should be given as appellant proceeds on the basis that those Judges were corrupt. We further notice that in Ext.P9, the marks obtained by the 1st prize winner and the appellant, whose team has secured only the 4th place is given. Total marks obtained by the first place winner is 268 whereas appellant's team has obtained only 245 marks. We think that in the limited nature of jurisdiction, we need not interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE.
ps/22/1/14