WP/36000/2003 of R.KAARUPPAN Vs 1.BALJIT SINGH SETHI, on 12 December 2003

:ORDER

R. Kaaruppan, petitioner in this Writ Petition, seeks to issue a Writof Mandamus, directing the respondents, Secretary General and Vice-President,The National Rifle Association of India to accept his entry for the trap andskeet events at the National clay pigeon shooting championship commencing from10th December, 2003.

2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner had not only qualified to take part in the National Clay TargetShooting Championship last year, but only reached the 9th National rank androse even further upto the 6th rank at the National level in the trap shootingevent. As far as skeet event is concerned, he had qualified despite nothaving been permitted to participate in the event for more than six years in

2002. By shooting a score of 89/125 in an intensely competed match and roseto the rank 9; hence he was entitled to participate in both the events. Therespondents as usual did not intimate him about the fixtures. Immediately oncoming to know about the event, on 28-11-2002 he sent his entries for all thethree events. When he contacted the State Shooting Federation to forward hisentries, he was informed that he should forward it directly to the NationalRifle Association. He sent the same to the respondent by Courier along with aletter dated 28th December, 200 3. Though the respondents had been receivingentries directly and they did so in the year 1998, thereafter they refused toaccept his request. When the entry had been sent to the respondents, it isnot open to them to deny him to participate in the events. Only in his casethe respondents are raising objections; hence the present writ petition forappropriate direction.

3. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and Mr. P.S. Raman, whowas taking notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. Mr. R. Kaaruppan, after taking me through his qualification and ability in competing the events which started from 10th December, 2003 atHyderabad, would contend that in the light of the attitude of the respondents,necessary direction may be issued to them for accepting his entry for the Trapand Skeet events in the National Clay Pigeon shooting championship. Even atthe outset i.e., while considering the submissions made by the petitioner, Mr.P.S. Raman representing the respondents, would contend that the writ petitionagainst the National Rifle Association of India is not maintainable, for whichhe relied on a decision of the Supreme Court and various orders passed by thisCourt. He also contended that the petitioner does not qualify to participatein the events as claimed.

5. In the light of the objection regarding maintainability of a writpetition against the National Rifle Association of India which is therespondent in this writ petition, I shall consider the question relating tomaintainability at the foremost. Since the judgement of the Supreme Court andvarious decisions of this Court, to be referred hereinafter, are between thevery same parties and directly on the point, I am of the view that there is noneed to refer other factual matrix, as argued by the petitioner. Against theorder dated 22-12-1999 made in Writ Petition No. 542/99, and dated 12-1-2000in W.M.P.No. 258/2000 in W.P.No. 542/99 of this Court, the petitioner hereinpreferred Special Leave to appeal (Civil) No. 1072-1973/2000 before theSupreme Court of India. The 1st respondent therein is the very same NationalRifle Association of India. On 21-01-2000 upon heaqring the petitioner inperson and learned counsel for the respondents-National Rifle Association ofIndia and another, the Honourable Supreme Court has passed the followingorder:

"We do not think that a writ petition would lie against the first respondentand there is nothing in the writ petition which suggests that it would or evenavers that it would. Secondly, we do not think that it is for this Court tointerfere in decisions as to who should or should not be a representative of Though Mr. R. Kaaruppan, petitioner himself enclosed a copy of theSupreme Court order in his typed-set of appers (vide page 1), by heavilyrelying on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22-12-1999rendered in Writ Petition No. 542 of 1999 (V.S. Sirpurkar and K.Gnanaprakasam, JJ), he contended that, as the Division Bench has grantedrelief, particularly in his favour, by declaring that the petitioner would beentitled to take part in the further National competition in the trap event inwhich he had reached the minimum standards in the National Competitions, 1999,there is no need in going into the maintainability of the writ petition and noimpediment would be caused in granting any relief as claimed by him. It istrue that in the said writ petition, the Division Bench accepted thepetitioner's case to some extent on merits. The Bench had no occasion to gointo the maintainability of the writ petition. It is relevant to note thatagainst the very same judgment of the Division Bench (in W.P.No.542/1999)with regard to the disallowed portion, the petitioner has preferredS.L.P (Civil) No. 1072-1073/2000 before the Supreme Court, which I havealready referred to. The S.L.P., was between the same parties, and theorderupon the petition came to be passed at the admission stage. In such acircumstance, I am of the view that so long as the said order subsists, thepetitioner cannot get any relief against the National Rifle Association ofIndia by filing a writ petition before this Court. In the light of the orderof the Supreme Court dated 21-01-2000 in the said special leave to appeal, Iam of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to rely on the DivisionBench decision of this Court dated 22-12-1999.

6. It is also relevant to refer the subsequent decision of this

6. It is also relevant to refer the subsequent decision of this Court. In Writ Petition No. 7975/2001 filed by the very same petitioneragainst the respondents, praying to issue a writ of declaration, declaring theNational Clay Pigeon Shooting Championship 2001 to be held by the firstrespondent or his agents from 9th April to 1 8th April at Bikaner in Rajasthanas null and void and issue direction to the respondents to conduct thechampionship afresh, P. Shanmugam, J., after referring to the judgement ofthe Supreme Court in S.L.P.No. 1072-1073/2000 dated 21-1-2000, dismissed thesaid writ petition. The following conclusion of the learned Judge isrelevant:

"The judgment between the inter-se parties is binding on the petitioner aswell as this Court. The petitioner has not made out any case or averred, asset out in the Supreme Court's order that the writ petition will lie againstthe first respondent".

7. It is also brought to my notice that the Division Bench consisting of V.S. Sirpurkar and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ., in W.P.M.P.No. 3534 of2003 and W.A.M.P.No. 543 of 2003 in W.P.No. 2042 5 of 1999 and W.A.No. 794of 2002, declined to grant interim relief by order dated 4-2-2003, based onthe observation of the apex Court. It is seen that the learned counselappearing for National Rifle Association of India has brought to the notice ofthe Division Bench the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated21-1-2000 in S.L.P. No. 1072-1073/2000. It is further seen that after perusing the said order, they accepted the objection raised by the learnedcounsel for the National Rifle Association of India.

8. It is also brought to my notice that the Hon'ble Chief Justice andK. Gnanaprakasam, J., while admitting Writ Petition No. 8121/2003, afterreferring to the order of the Supreme Court in S. L.P.No. 1072-1073/2000dated 21-01-2000, declined to grant interim relief. However, the writpetition was admitted by the said Vision Bench as far as third respondent,namely, Sports Authority of India, New Delhi is concerned in order to verifywhether they got any role or control in the affairs of the first respondent,namely, National Rifle Association of India.

9. It is also relevant to refer the latest order of another Division Bench consisting of Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam and S. Ashok Kumar, JJ., inWrit Petition Nos. 20425/99 and 8121/2003, Writ Appeal No. 794/2002 andContempt Petition No. 368/2003 dated 5-12-2003. The said Vision Bench had anoccasion to consider maintainability of a writ petition against National RifleAssociation of India. The Hon'ble Division Bench, after taking the assistanceof the learned Advocate General and after hearing the petitioner in person,counsel for National Rifle Association and after referring to variousdecisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and afteranalysing all the materials placed before them, have concluded in para 37thus:

"37. So, there is no difficulty in holding that the Chennai Rifle Club or theNational Rifle Association of India would not be construed to be a Statewithin the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution."

10. In the light of the order of the apex Court dated 21-01-2000 and the subsequent orders of this Court, referred to above, I hold that therespondent, namely, National Rifle Association of India is not a State withinthe meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and no direction in the form ofmandamus be issued as claimed by the petitioner. Though the petitioner, whilearguing the case on 9 -12-2003 and 10-12-2003, has promised to palce otherjudgements/ decisions in support of his claim that the writ petition ismaintainable against the Rifle Association of India, till date he has notfurnished any other material. In the light of the binding decisions referredto above, I have no other option, except to dismiss the writ petition as notmaintainable. In view of the above conclusion, there is no need to go intothe merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

11. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 43716 of 2003 is closed.

R.B.

Index: YesInternet: Yes