KESAVAN BHASKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit arises from the order of this Court, which has been passed on February 19, 1960, and thereby a petition invoking powers under Art.226 of the Constitution was dismissed. The ground of dismissal is that the matter is essentially within the discretion of the authority competent to grant the exemption, and the exercise of the discretion cannot be interfered with by the Court in the exercise of its extraordinary powers under Art.226. The facts of the petition are that the mother of Saigal had requested the Director of Public Instruction on October 8, 1959, for exemption under R.127E of the Travancore Education Code to be given to the son. The Rule provides as follows:-

(2.) The Headmaster of the School also wrote to the Director of Text Books and Examinations recommending Saigal being given exemption. The boy was 11 years and 6 months on February 12, 1960. In March 1957 he was allowed to sit for public examination for III Form and passed the examination obtaining a certificate. Afterwards he joined Kottapuram High School and by promotion he reached the School Final Class, which is XIth standard. It is seen from the past record of his study that he had creditably passed all the class examinations, and has been selected for the ensuing public examination and has paid the necessary fee. The Director of the Text Books and Examinations refused to grant him the exemption on the ground stated in his memorandum, which is Ext. P. 6 in the case. Its relevant extracts are as follows:-

(3.) The learned Advocate of the appellant has urged that discretionary power under the rule must not be controlled by self created rules of policy. In support of this argument he relies on Regina v. Flintshire County Council County Licensing (Stage Plays) Committee (1957 Q.B. 350). There the committee had adopted a general rule that no alcoholic liquor or tobacco should be sold in a theatre if adequate drinking facilities were available nearby and having imposed that condition on one theatre followed it against the applicant theatre on grounds of inconsistency. Jenks, L.J., observed that the committee wrongly pursued consistency at the expense of the merits of individual cases. The learned Judge at p. 368 observes:-