- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Schedule To Conduct Pamba Boat Race...
Schedule To Conduct Pamba Boat Race Is Decided By Competent Authorities, No Club Has 'Right' To Conduct Race: Kerala High Court
K. Salma Jennath
9 Sept 2025 7:20 PM IST
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) observed that there is no constitutional or statutory right available to any club to conduct boat race in Pamba river. It also said that the schedule for conducting boat race is to be decided by the competent authorities, including the District Collector.The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) observed that there is no constitutional or statutory right available to any club to conduct boat race in Pamba river. It also said that the schedule for conducting boat race is to be decided by the competent authorities, including the District Collector.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal challenging the interim order passed by a Single Judge modifying the schedule set by the District Collector.
The contesting parties in the case are two boat clubs, namely Pamba Boat Race Club (1st respondent/petitioner) and Pamba Boat Race Club Reg No. 98/90 (appellant/5th respondent). Both the clubs had applied for conducting boat race on the days of Onam, i.e., 4th and 5th September. However, after a meeting convened by the District Collector, Exhibit P16 was passed scheduling the races on 12th and 19th for the appellant and the 1st respondent respectively.
The 1st respondent had approached the Single Bench and sought for a prior date to conduct the boat race. It also prayed that an enquiry may be conducted to look into the credentials of the appellant.
In the interim order passed on 03.09.2025, the Single Judge had modified (reversed) the schedule and allowed the 1st respondent to conduct the race on 12th whereas the appellant to conduct it on 19th. The Single Judge had done so after recording that as per the submission made by the counsels, the 1st respondent have been conducting the boat race continuously during Onam season. Challenging the interim order, the writ appeal was filed.
When the matter came up for consideration, the Bench orally asked, "The District Collector takes the call to permit any number of people to conduct races...Where is your right? Where is your Constitutional, statutory or any other right that you can derive from any input that is referable to law to conduct the boat race?"
The government pleader submitted that there is no right on any party to conduct the race and the permission is given at the discretion of the District Collect as per the direction of another bench in WP(C) 27903/2024. It was also stated that the schedule is decided by the District Collector after taking into account the logistical and security parameters for the events.
Further, it was submitted that the 1st respondent had boycotted the meeting called for by the District Collector but it was permitted to conduct the race on 19th anyway.
Disposing the writ appeal, the Court further observed:
"We notice from the impugned order that the only reason why the learned Single Judge passed it is that admissions were allegedly made by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and which was “confirmed by the Government Pleader” that the Writ Petitioner association was continuously conducting the boat race during Onam season. The order does not record that this was in any manner admitted to by the appellant herein and we, therefore, fail to understand how on the basis of such assertions, Exhibit P16 could have been modified.
It is more so when it is without contest and as is acceded to by the learned counsel on both sides – that none of the clubs obtain any Constitutional or statutory right to conduct the boat race and that this schedule is left to be decided by the competent authorities including the District Collector."
The Division Bench made it clear that it is only exercising jurisdiction as against the interim order and the larger issues in the writ petition are left open for the Single Bench to decide.
Thus, it set aside the interim order in the writ petition and disposed of the appeal.
Case No: WA No. 2157/ 2025
Case Title: Pamba Boat Race Club Reg No. 98/90 and Anr. v. Pamba Boat Race Club and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
Counsel for the appellant: Joseph George, P.A. Rejimon, Vivekjos Puthukulangara
Counsel for the respondents: Liju V. Stephen
Click to read/download interim order in WP(C) 32982/2025
Click to read/download judgment in WP(C) 27903/2024
Click to Read/Download Judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2157/ 2025