IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2008 Coram :- THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.No.3308 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2008 R.Kaaruppan .. Petitioner v. 1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. By The Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai – 104. 2.Baljit Singh Sethi Secretary General, The National Rifle Association of India, Nehru Stadium, New Delhi – 110 003. 3.Sivanthi Adithyan, Vice President of the National Rifle Association, The Nehru Stadium. 4.Chennai Rifle Club Rep. By its Secretary ... Respondents (R4 impleaded as per order dated 09.02.2007 by the Hon'ble CJ and KCJ in W.P.No.3308 of 2007 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : R.Karuppan Party in Person For Respondents: Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P. For R1 Mr.P.R.Raman for R2 to R4 O R D E R (Order of the Court was delivered by PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.) 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. The Guwahati Championship has come and gone. But however, we have heard the petitioner in person only because he has made a plea that in the interest of sports, direction shall be given so that the sportsmen who are interested in Shooting will not be denied participation in Championships at any level, not because they lack merit, but because of other reasons. 4. The third respondent has been known for his interest in sports and has been the President of the National Volley Ball Association, National Hockey Association, President of the Indian Olympic Association and he is also the Secretary of the Chennai Rifle Club. Since both are sportsmen, we are sure, they will conduct themselves in future in true sportsman spirit. If there has been some bitterness in the past, it is time that it is buried. Both of them shall ensure that this game and various tournaments relating to shooting are conducted fairly and openly and participation is permitted in the true interest of sports. "For when the one great scorer comes to mark against your name, He writes – not that you won or lost – but how you played the game" (Rice) 5. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. 6. In W.P.No.44419 of 2006, this Court had rightly held in Paragraph No.13 which reads as follows: " 13. It is neither necessary not desirable to enter into discussions on all such events which occurred in the past. We can only rest content by observing that it is still open for the petitioner and Respondent No.2 to forget the past legal wrangling in a mature manner and make serious efforts to make a fresh beginning. The petitioner, who appears to be an accomplished shooter as well as a talented Advocate, instead of dissipating energy by triggering endless personal legal battles, can coolly reflect upon the whole issue in a dispassionate manner and take appropriate remedial measures including filing appropriate application for resuming his membership. It is unnecessary to observe that if any such application is filed, it should be considered by the second respondent without being prejudiced by the past history of legal wrangling." 7. But no, that is not the end of the matter. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. Several interim orders have been passed by which the petitioner was allowed to practice. In fact the petitioner repeatedly spoke about the interim directions allowing him to practice. These directions have been given by our Court on several occasion and even by the Supreme Court. These directions have served their purpose. We only have to repeat the observation of this Court made in Dr.K.Nedunchezhian v. Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax reported in 2005 (4) CTC 161, wherein this court has referred to the observations of the Supreme Court to the effect that "... we can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged." It is only pending decision of the maintainability, these directions were given. 8. As regards the maintainability of this petition, the petitioner repeatedly referred to Zee TV films which was allegedly his inspiration. In Zee TV Films, the Supreme Court observed that while remedy under Article 32 is not available against the cricket control Board, an aggrieved party may always seek his remedy under Article 226 "which is much wider than 32". The petitioner read out for us the entire pleadings. We found that at many places personal allegations are made. We do not take note of them, as forming part of the records. For if we do, then the Public Interest Character of this litigation will be lost. We would like to and we do deal only with the public interest angle of this writ petition which is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the betterment of the sport, and open and free participation of all sportsmen interested in these events of course, in accordance with the Rules. We deal with only one specific allegation and that is that the statement made by the counsel for the respondents on an earlier occasion that the team had left for Guwahati was false. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Counsel explained it by producing the record to show that a team had indeed gone. Mr.K.Karuppan said that this was not what was meant. But we accept the explanation and leave it at that. 9. The petitioner cannot take advantage of ZEE TV film and file what he calls a Public Interest Litigation for ventilating his private grievance. He must understand that sportsmanship includes team spirit and co-operation. This team spirit and co-operation shall be displayed not only with his team men, but with club members and all fellowmen. His success in the sport will depend on his being a good club member abiding by the Rules, not by obtaining interim directions. No one, not even a party in person can file a litigation with the sole object of obtaining interim direction. 10. However, in view of the repeated submission made by the petitioner that he an excellent marksman had been denied the opportunity to take part in international events because of selection made otherwise on merits, we directed the respondents to produce the relevant records. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the records relating to the National Championship, G.V.Mavalankar Championship and also the state events. According to him, selection has been made only on merits and in accordance with the rules laid down by the National Rifle Association of India (for short NRAI). According to the learned counsel, Chennai Rifle Club has no role to play in the Rules that are laid down by NRAI. The common Rules for the G.V.Mavalankar Shooting Championship and National Championship filed by the respondents shows that the Rules are laid down only by NRAI. The Local Club has no role to play. It is also seen that participation is open only to competitors belonging to Association / Club affiliated to NRAI. It is only where there is no Association or Club functioning in a particular state that competitors directly affiliated to NRAI will be allowed to participate. 11. The petitioner's membership was not renewed. Because, he was not a member, there were some hurdles and the petitioner alleges he had spent his own money to practice. But today, the subscription fee has been paid by the petitioner and a provisional membership card has been given and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents assures this Court that this is only a formality and the permanent membership will be given to the petitioner. We have earlier given directions that the police verification shall be dispensed with. 12. The petitioner has made several claims with regard to his personal sufferings, the expenditure he has incurred eg. inability to get duty free ammunition. We really think that those matters have to be agitated in a forum where there is scope for evidence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In a Public Interest Litigation, those issues cannot be decided. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced the Rules and Regulations of the Chennai Rifle Club. According to the learned counsel, as per the Rules, the petitioner will be entitled to whatever the other members are entitled to and no more or no less. Section III deals with the Membership and the Admission Fee. Section IV deals with Privileges of Members and Clause 1(d) shows that a member can attend instruction classes and also shooting practice. This is one of the privileges of a member. Section V deals with Training. In Clause 3(a), it is seen that the Club shall equip itself with the required number of weapons with necessary ammunition and the cost shall be made from the funds of the Club. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Club purchases the Ammunition, Clay birds etc., but the stock will have to be shared amongst the members who want practice. The petitioner having become a member will have to share it with his co-members as all the other members are entitled to. 15. One of the grievances of the petitioner was that the minimum qualification score was insisted by the Club only with regard to the petitioner and with regard to others that was not insisted upon and in fact Wild Cards were given for several persons. In fact even in the counter filed by the fourth respondent, this is referred to. Therefore, we requested the respondents to furnish us with the details of all those persons, for whom Wild Cards have been issued in the last five years and with their score and reasons for which recommendation had been given by the Local Club to the NRAI. Admittedly, NRAI issues Wild Cards only on the recommendation of the Club or the Association of the State. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents now submits that there is an assurance on behalf of NRAI, the second and third respondents that a Wild Card would be given to the petitioner so that he can participate in the National Level Championship that is scheduled to be held at Jaipur from 14th to 24th December, 2008. It is also submitted that production of the details regarding the Wild Cards given in the last five years may take some time and therefore, he requests this Court that this direction may be dispensed with. We record his assurance that a Wild Card will be issued to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible so that the petitioner can make himself ready to take part in the Jaipur Championship. The issuance of Wild Card should not postponed in the last moment, i.e. on the eve of the Championship, thus making the issuance of Wild Card an empty gesture. The petitioner submitted that only because this Court called for details regarding issuance of Wild Cards for the last 5 years, the respondents have come forward with this gesture. We do not want to comment on this. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents had earlier given us a list of persons who had participated in the National https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Championship, Mavalankar Championship and the State Championship to show that it was open to all the members and the members participated depending on their scores. We find from the counter filed by the fourth respondent that the shooting range itself consists of two divisions viz.." Range A" and "Range B" and Range B has been placed at the disposal of the Chennai Rifle Club by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide proceedings of the D.R.O., Kancheepuram in R.Dis.166783/77 dated 30.10.1979. Ofcourse, Range A is constructed on lands belonging to the third respondent. But Range B is Government Land. Both together form the Alamadhi Shooting Range. It is not a personal fiefdom of anyone. So the admission of members and the issuance of ammunition should be done fairly. We hope all the authorities concerned and the respondents will bear this in mind in future. 18. At Page 127 of the typed set, there is a copy of the letter dated 21.08.2008 issued by the Honourable Secretary to the Member, which gives them intimation of the championship that is to be held that year and gives them sufficient time so that they could send their entries. We have no doubt that since the petitioner has become a member, he would also be given such letter so that he will be able to practice for the championship or events for the year 2009. 19. The third respondent is also the Executive Vice President of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu and it is seen from the Minutes of the Meeting dated 10.01.2003 that he had been nominated as such for the fourth time. We are sure that the third respondent will do what is within his power to ensure that the Shooting Sportsmen of Tamilnadu reach greater heights and Tamilnadu secures a premier position in our country as regards this sport. 20. Though the prayer in the writ petition seeks for a direction for providing of shooting blazers and track suit and for transport to and from the place of event, it is seen from the Rules that the travel expenses is borne only by the participants. So the directions given herein are only to the effect that the respondents will ensure that the selection for participation is done fairly and transparently so that the best sportsmen can take part in all the events to come. 21. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if somebody wants to practice on the non-practice days, then they have to apply for the same. The petitioner requests this Court that he wants to practice for the following days, 27.11.2008, 28.11.2008, 29.11.2008, 30.11.2008, 01.12.2008, 02.12.2008, 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008. We treat the petitioner's request made in Court as an application. Hence, we direct the respondents to treat the request made by the petitioner in Court as an application for the days referred above. We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that from 5th of December 2008, till the beginning of the Championship, it will be any way open and it will be treated as practice day. Therefore, for the above said days, the direction given will be treated as an application and therefore, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents shall permit the petitioner to practice. On any of those days, if the petitioner does not come, of course, the respondents need not supply ammunition or claybirds. This will be done as per the Rules of the Club. These directions really have no place in a Public Interest Litigation. In view of the long litigation, we have given this direction. It is not to be taken as a precedent in future. 22. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Regarding any private grievance that the petitioner may have, it is open to him to seek his remedy in a forum where evidence can be recorded and decision can be arrived at. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki To 1.The Chief Secretary, The State of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 104. 2.Secretary General, The National Rifle Association of India, Nehru Stadium, New Delhi – 110 003. 3.Vice President of the National Rifle Association, The Nehru Stadium. 4.The Secretary The Chennai Rifle Club, Chennai 1 cc To Mr.R.Karuppan, Advocate, SR.66528 1 cc To Mr.P.R.Raman, Advocate, SR.66917 W.P.No.3308 of 2007 NSM(CO) SRA(12/12/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/