JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. Petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the course and proceedings whereby the complaint and I.A.s filed before the Lok Ayukta came to be dismissed attributing blame on the petitioner for not having remitted necessary process charges and also for not being present in person when the case was called. 2. Heard Sri. Cibi Thomas the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The gist of the factual matrix is that, the petitioner, though participated in the Revenue District Sathrolsavam, was not in a position to secure the first or second place, but for securing the 3rd place with A Grade. Next level of participation is available only to those who have obtained the first position in the feeder level. In the said circumstances, the petitioner sought to challenge the decision of the judging panel by filing a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, in which the Upa Lok Ayukta passed an interim order dated 23.11.2017, enabling participation. By virtue of the said interim order, the petitioner participated in the State Level Kerala School Sasthrolsvam; but the result stands withheld. 4. The matter came up for consideration before the Upa Lok Ayukta on 17.01.2018. Observing that the petitioner/complainant had not taken any steps for issuance of notice through special messenger ordered by the Upa Lok Ayukta, the complaint was dismissed, holding that necessary consequences will follow. 5. There was no response for nearly two months. After about 57 days of passing the said order, the petitioner filed Ext. P2 petition seeking for restitution of the complaint, along with Ext. P3 petition to condone the delay involved. The matter was considered by the Upa Lok Ayukta on 17.01.2018 and after referring to the sequence of events, it was observed that, neither the complainant nor counsel was present on 17.01.2018 and that no steps were taken to serve notice by special messenger. The Upa Lok Ayukta observed that, it was not at all a fit case to recall the order passed on 07.01.2018, that too after condoning the delay and accordingly, Ext. P4 order was passed in I.A. Nos. 909 and 910 of 2018, which in turn is sought to be interdicted by filing the present writ petition. 6. The Upa Lok Ayukta observed that, it was not at all a fit case to recall the order passed on 07.01.2018, that too after condoning the delay and accordingly, Ext. P4 order was passed in I.A. Nos. 909 and 910 of 2018, which in turn is sought to be interdicted by filing the present writ petition. 6. During the course of hearing, the petitioner could not bring out any tenable ground to persuade us to interfere with the order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta vide Ext. P4. The conduct of the petitioner/complaint is disclosed in the order, which is not disputed by the petitioner, but for seeking further indulgence of this Court to give one more chance to substantiate his case. 7. We do not find any merit in the contentions. Incidentally, it is relevant to note that this Court has come across various similar orders being passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta, Human Rights Commission, Civil Courts and such other bodies, as a matter of course, granting permission to the lost contestants to participate in the youth festivals at higher levels and on the strength of such orders, they, who otherwise are not qualified for having failed to secure the 'first place' to have the eligibility to participate in the next level of participation secure undue benefit. The adverse circumstances resulted by virtue of such course have been highlighted by this Court on many an occasion, including as to the unsettling of the equilibrium in the time schedule fixed for conducting the festival. 8. The students in favour of whom such interim orders are passed may be persons, as in the instant case, the third prize winner or those who occupy much lower level. The student who got the second place or such other higher position as the case may be, if belongs to poor strata of the society, he will not be in a position to challenge the verdict passed at the feeder level and might be resting at home cursing his fate. In other words, the students who are awarded/rated with the 'second' or such other higher position are made to stay at home, the contestants at still lower level are being permitted to participate in the event. This will perpetuate injustice, compromising with the better talent. In other words, the students who are awarded/rated with the 'second' or such other higher position are made to stay at home, the contestants at still lower level are being permitted to participate in the event. This will perpetuate injustice, compromising with the better talent. The interim orders being passed under such circumstances as a matter of course, are not at all in the best interest of the deserving lot, catering to the interested persons, who can afford to bear the cost of litigation, which is to be taken serious note of. 9. The interim orders passed by such authorities/quasi judicial bodies still virtually provide for increasing the number of participants in a given event or programme, where the number of permissible participants stands restricted by the organizers. It is to be noted, as part of illustration, the participants in a specific event may be 14' of 16', having secured the first position at the district level [representing the different districts/revenue/educational districts] and the time schedule will be fixed in such a manner so as to complete the event to be followed by such other events to be conducted on the same stage, on the very same day. If the students occupying only lower position in the feeder level, are also permitted to participate as a matter of course [by Lok Ayukta or such other forum], there is a chance of increase in the total number of participants even beyond the logical limits. As a natural consequence, the time schedule will get unsettled and the event may go unending, even to be carried to the next day, adversely affecting the performance of other children who are waiting in the queue [who are otherwise qualified by virtue of their own merits, having secured the first position at feeder level] and also causing hardships to the members in the judging panel. This cycle will continue, resulting in undue delay in commencement and completion of the program in respect of the events scheduled on the same date, which has been deprecated by this Court on many an occasion. 10. The learned Government Pleader submits that the organizers are finding it extremely difficult to have the events conducted as per the time schedule, because of such orders and in the said circumstance, the State/Department has already approached this Court filing a Writ Petition projecting the grievance which is pending consideration. 10. The learned Government Pleader submits that the organizers are finding it extremely difficult to have the events conducted as per the time schedule, because of such orders and in the said circumstance, the State/Department has already approached this Court filing a Writ Petition projecting the grievance which is pending consideration. We do not intend to express anything further in this regard, as the issue is pending. We have referred to all these aspects only in the given context, to assert that the petitioner, after getting interim order from the Upa Lok Ayukta to participate in the event, was not at all justified in not remitting the process charges on time and in keeping himself away from the proceedings pending before the Upa Lok Ayukta. As mentioned already, the conduct displayed by the Petitioner stands deprecated by the Lok Ayukta itself and it was accordingly, that the I.A.s filed have been dismissed as per Ext. P4, which does not call for any interference. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.