R KAARUPPAN Vs. BALJIT SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed W.P. No.36000/2003 praying the Court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature of a writ, directing the respondents to accept the appellant's entry for the skeet event at the National Clay Pigeon Shooting Championship commencing from 12th December, 2003. A learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the National Rifle Association of India is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and consequently, no direction in the form of mandamus can be issued as prayed for by the appellant. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the said order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the appellant has stated that the respondents as usual did not intimate to him about the fixtures and that he came to know only from his friends and that further, immediately on coming to know about the event, he sent his entries for all the three events. The appellant further claimed that he left for Hyderabad and practised in the shooting range on 4th and until 5th afternoon. The appellant would contend that suddenly at about 3.30 P.M., he was called by the Range in charge Mr.Gopal Reddy and was asked to leave the shooting ground for the reason that he does not have an entry to take part in the Nationals. On the same day evening, the appellant met the Executive Secretary Mr.Rajiv Bhatia, who informed him that the appellant's entries have not been received. The said Bhatia told the appellant that he should have sent the entries only through the State Federation and for which the appellant replied that only on the advice of the said Federation, he had sent his entries directly. According to the appellant, the respondents used to receive entries directly and in fact they did so in the year 1998. The appellant also would claim that he not only got qualified last year but also reached the 9th National rank and rose even further upto the 6th rank at the National level in the trap shooting event. As far as the skeet event is concerned, he got qualified amazingly despite not having been permitted to participate in the event for more than six years, in 2002, and his shooting score was 89/125. According to the appellant, once it is demonstrated that entries had been sent to the respondents, it is not open to them to deny the appellant's participation. His further case is that a writ will lie against the first respondent since it performs sovereign functions and it is controlled by the Government. Apart from that, the first respondent also receives government's grants and enjoys total customs duty exemption with regard to import of arms and ammunition. The first respondent is also functioning under the direct supervision and control of the Sports Authority of India.

(3.) This Court ordered notice to the respondents before admission. Thiru P.S.Raman appeared for the respondents and contended that the Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that a writ will not lie against the respondents and hence, rightly, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable. That apart, he would also contend that nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Petition since the skeet event at the National Clay Pigeon shooting Championship, which commenced on 12.12.2003, was over long back. Yet another submission has been made to the effect that the appellant ceased to be a member even in the year 1998 because he failed to remit the subscription and that the First Bench of this Court persuaded the parties to come to an amicable settlement and in fact an order was passed by the Court in October 2002, pursuant to which only his membership was restored. But however, later on, the appellant himself prayed this Court to cancel the said order passed in October, 2002. Pursuant to that request, the First bench of this Court set aside the earlier order passed in October 2002 by an order dated 29.1.2003. Hence the resultant position is that as on to-day the appellant is not a member of Chennai Rifle Club. When the appellant is not a member of Chennai Rifle Club or any other club, he cannot participate in the skeet event at the National Clay Pigeon Shooting Championship conducted by the National Rifle Association of India.