R KAARUPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to invite eligible shooters from the entire state for training providing for stay and ammunition and clay birds and conduct a competition and select members to represent the State in all the three events namely, trap, double trap and skeet and provide for the travel and provide the shooting blazers and track suit and for transport to and from Guahati and provide for their stay and transport and ammunition and clay birds for practice and competition there and do all the needful for their competition at the National Shooting Championship at Guahati. The prayer of the writ petition essentially is that the respondents should invite eligible Shooters from the entire State for representing the State in all the three events namely, trap, double trap and skeet and do all the needful for their competition at the National Shooting Championship at Guwahati.

(2.) THE petitioner is an Advocate and he is also a Rifle Shooter. According to him, he has participated in many Shooting Championships and he has gone to other countries also. THE grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been permitted to participate in the Guwahati Shooting Championship.

(3.) ACCORDING to the papers before us, we see that the first case filed by the petitioner is W.P.No.3252 of 2000 which was for almost the same prayer. The petitioner wanted to withdraw the writ petition with leave to file a fresh writ petition. It was opposed on the ground that repeated writ petitions are being filed making wild allegations and such liberty should not be given. ACCORDINGly, it was allowed to be withdrawn without liberty. On 29.01.2004, petitioner was informed that he was selected to participate in selection trials for Nationals. Then the battle of attrition starts. A series of writ petitions are filed being W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999, W.P.No.8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Contempt Petition No.368 of 2003. In fact, costs were imposed on petitioner. Several orders have been passed.