MOHAMMED ASHRAF Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Organizing 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 :

(2.) 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), 1992 AIR(AP) 130 to contend that the right to move the civil court is a right which can be waived or given up and that as the participants have impliedly agreed to abide by the terms and stipulations in the Manual, their right to move the civil court should be deemed to have been waived.

(3.) Sri. P. Gopal, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court submitted that the Manual (a full text of which was made available by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and is incorporated in the records) is not statutory in nature and that the stipulation therein that all disputes arising out of the conduct of Keralotsavam, 2009 shall be within the jurisdiction of this Court does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. The learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that there is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute it is no answer to a suit however frivolous the claim may be, to contend that the law confers no such right to sue. He farther submitted that the jurisdiction of the civil court can be excluded only by an express provision of law or by a clear intentment arising from such law and that as the Manual published by the Kerala State Youth Welfare Board has no statutory backing, the stipulations therein cannot oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. Titer learned Amicus Curiae invited my attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in;