Kerala High Court
WP(C)/42252/2022 of LEON PIUS, Vs HRIDYA JOSEPH, on 30 December 2022
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 42252 OF 2022 PETITIONER: LEON PIUS, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH PIUS T.G., THATTASSERY HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., KOCHI 682 040, A MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 9TH POUSHA, 1944WP(C) NO. 42252 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
LEON PIUS, AGED 17 YEARS, JOSEPH PIUS T.G.
S/O. JOSEPH PIUS T.G., THATTASSERY HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., KOCHI 682 040, A MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
BY ADVS.A.K.PREETHA
C.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1HRIDYA JOSEPH, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TIRUVAMPADY, ALAPPUZHA -688 009.TIRUVAMPADY, ALAPPUZHA -688 009.
2THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), NEAR COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
3ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV.SRI.V.S.SREEJITH, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2022
The petitioner was a participant in the Alappuzha Revenue District School Kalolsavam, in the item Violin-Western. He states that there was no power supply during theperformance and the assessment was erroneous. TheAppellate Authority has not passed a speaking order.
2. The Government Pleader would submit that theAppellate Authority has, in fact, passed an order, but since thepetitioner did not participate in the appellate proceedings, itcould not be served in person. The Government Pleaderexpressed readiness to produce a copy of the order on thenext posting date.
The Government Pleader would submit that the
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. As regards the allegation that there was no powersupply which resulted in unequal assessment of competition, I
find that this is a question of fact and it cannot be gone intoby this Court especially in the light of the judgment of thisCourt in WP(C) No.40794/2022 and connected cases. Asregards appellate order, the Government Pleader submits thata speaking order has been passed by the Appeal Committee. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
akv
Sd/-N.NAGARESH JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42252/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT KALOLSAVAM FOR VIOLIN WESTERN.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE MESSAGE REJECTING HIS APPEAL.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//P.A. TO JUDGE