THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned Writ Petitions are materially connected in respect of the District Rifle Association of Idukki, draft voters list published, amendment to the Kerala Sports Act, 2000, and the consequential action of the Association in removing certain members from the voters list. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment. Facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No. 16049 of 2017 are relied upon, and the decision taken in the said Writ Petition will decide the fate of the other two Writ Petitions.

(2.) The reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition are to quash Exts. P5 to P7, which are issued by the District Collector, Idukki, directing the District Rifle Association to draw up a draft voters list in accordance with the amendment made to the Kerala Sports Act, 2000, the action initiated by the District Rifle Association drawing up the list and consequential notice issued to conduct the election on 10.05.2017, on the basis of the list prepared in accordance with the directions issued by the District Collector. Material facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows:

(3.) Petitioners, three in number, are the existing members of the 4th respondent Association viz., the District Rifle Association, Idukki. The membership and functioning of the 4th respondent is provided as per Ext. P1 Memorandum of Association. As per Ext.P1, any Indian citizen of 21 years can become a member of the 4th respondent, subject to the screening, approval and confirmation process as explained in Ext.P1. Ext.P4 is the list of existing members and elections were declared to be conducted in accordance with the list. However, the 2nd respondent issued Exts.P5, P5(a), P6 and P7, adjourning the election and ordered to renew the members list by excluding 456 members residing outside the Idukki District. The said direction was issued on the basis of the amendment made to the Kerala Sports Act, 2000, as per the Kerala Sports (Amendment) Act, 2015. According to the petitioners, the said exclusion is on a wrong application of law, which was never intended by the legislature.