IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05/12/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003 W.P.No.20425 of 1999: R.Karuppan .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Patron of Chennai Rifle Club, Raj Bhavan, Chennai. 2. Kalimuthu, The President of the Chennai Rifle Club, Egmore, Chennai-8. 3. Ramanathan, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8. 4. Sivanthi Adithyan, Secretary, Chennai Rifle Club, Chennai. 5. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 6. The Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Member Secretary, 116-A, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Nehru Park, Chennai-84. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.R.Karuppan - Petitioner in person For respondents: Mr. N.R.Chandran, Advocate General, Amicus Curiae. Mr.P.S.Raman for R-4 Mr.K.Muralidharan, Govt.Advocate for Mr.V.Raghupathi, Government Pleader for R-5 Mr.R.Srinivas for R-6 No appearance for RR-1 and 2 W.P.No.8121 of 2003: R.Kaaruppan .. Petitioner vs. 1. The National Rifle Association of India, rep. by its Secretary Balijeeth Singh Sethi, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. 2. B.Sivanthi Adithyan, Senior Vice-President, National Rifle Association of India, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. 3. The Sports Authority of India, rep. by its Secretary, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.R.Karuppan - Petitioner in person For respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman for RR-1 and 2 Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, SCGSC for R-3 W.A.No.794 of 2002 : R.Karuppan .. Appellant vs. 1. The National Rifle Association of India, rep. by its Secretary, Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. 2. Sivanthi Adithyan, Secretary, Chennai Rifle Club, Chennai. .. Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 20-10-2000 in W.P.No.3252 of 2000. For appellant : Mr.R.Karuppan, Appellant in person For respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman Cont.P.No.368 of 2003 : R.Kaaruppan .. Petitioner vs. 1. Baljit Singh Sethi, Secretary General, The National Rifle Association of India, Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110 003. 2. Sivanthi Adithyan, Secretary, Chennai Rifle Club, Rani Building, Poonthamallee High Road, Chennai-600 007. .. Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 2(c) read with 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents, as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.R.Karuppan  Petitioner in person For respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman :O R D E R M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. There are two writ petitions and one writ appeal filed by Mr. Karuppan, the petitioner herein as party-in-person. 2. The prayer in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 is for a Mandamus directing the respondents for vesting the Chennai Rifle Club with the State Government and for further directions. 3. The other writ petition is W.P.No.8121 of 2003 wherein the prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to conduct a coaching camp well in advance to the maximum duration. 4. W.A.No.794 of 2002 would relate to the appeal against the order passed in W.P.No.3252 of 2000 assailing the same on the ground that permission for withdrawal of the writ petition was given to the petitioner without giving opportunity to file a fresh petition. 5. Besides these, the petitioner/party-in-person filed another petition as a contempt petition in C.P.No.368 of 2003 requesting to take contempt action against Sivanthi Adityan, the fourth respondent in W. P.No.20425 of 1999 for having given false particulars in his counter. 6. The case of the petitioner as culled out from the affidavit of W.P.No.20425 of 1999 is as follows: "The petitioner was a member of the Chennai Rifle Club. Sivanthi Adityan, the fourth respondent is the Honorary Secretary of the said Club. Though the range, machinery and buildings belong to the Government, Sivanthi Adityan named the said range after him. This was done without any authorisation from the Government in order to siphon off money from the Government. So, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Patron of Chennai Rifle Club on 27.11.1998. When permission was denied to the petitioner for participating in the National Tournament by the National Rifle Association of India, the petitioner filed W.P. No.542 of 1999 stating that Sivanthi Adityan, the fourth respondent did not allow the petitioner and other members to have an access to the ranges and the equipments belonging to Tamil Nadu State. On 15.6.199 8, the petitioner received a communication from Sivanthi Adityan, stating that he defaulted in payment of subscription to the Chennai Rifle Club and asking him to make the payment of Rs.1,000/- as entry fee along with the subscription on or before 30.6.1998. Though the said amount was not paid, a Demand Draft for Rs.1,500/- was sent on 14.7.1 998. On 5.8.1998, he received a communication from Sivanthi Adityan acknowledging the receipt of the amount and informing him that the matter would be placed before the Committee for decision. On 6.1.1999, a letter was received from the Commissioner of Police, Ex-officio President of Chennai Rifle Club stating that pending consideration of his membership in the range, the petitioner will be permitted to take part in the Rifle Club Shooting Range. Despite that, he was not allowed to use the range. The petitioner is not only a member of the Chennai Rifle Club, but also has been winning laurels to the Club, both National and International Championship. The petitioner has already won a silver medal in the International competition. Since the range has been used by Sivanthi Adityan as if it is his own personal property without distributing the ammunition to the petitioner as well as to other members, the entire range and machineries shall be vested with the Government. 7. In this petition, there are five respondents. The first respondent is the Patron of the Chennai Rifle Club. According to him, through his coutner-affidavit, the petitioner has been continuously approaching this Court by misusing the due process of law making several false allegations and obtaining the interim orders to participate in several events even without being a member of the Club. The petitioner has been already expelled from membership of the Club as per rules. His name has been struck off from the register as per Section III, Rule 3(k) of the Rules of the Club. The petitioner is not entitled to participate in any event conducted by the first respondent, since more than three years have elapsed since his date of expulsion. 8. According to the respondents 2 and 3, the President of Chennai Rifle Club, the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police respectively, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the respondents 1 to 4 are not charged with any public duty nor can be considered as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Chennai Rifle Club is neither controlled by the State nor governed by any State. The land belonging to Sivanthi Adityan was offered for the construction of additional range for the use of Chennai Rifle Club and additional construction was done only by Sivanthi Adityan. No amount was spent by the Chennai Rifle Club or by the Government for the said construction. He neither challenged the expulsion from the Club nor asked for re-admission within the period of three years. The petitioner has not come with clean hands for a bona fide cause. Therefore, no relief could be granted to him." 9. The case of Mr.Sivanthi Adityan, the fourth respondent through his counter-affidavit is as follows: "The entire grievance is one relating to the petitioner's expulsion from the Club for non-payment of subscription. Without challenging the order, the petitioner has filed writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation by abusing the process of court. The Chennai Rifle Club is not a State or an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Already, the Supreme Court decided that no writ will lie against the Club in S.L.P.Nos.1072 and 1072 of 2000. The Range-A was named after the fourth respondent Sivanthi Adityan only on the decision taken by the members of the Club. The petitioner has never represented India in any International competition. The allegations made against the fourth respondent and his son are all totally untrue." 10. The fifth respondent, the State of Tamil Nadu has filed the counter through the Deputy Secretary to Government on behalf of the Chief Secretary. The contents of the same are as follows: " The respondents 1 to 4 are not charged with any public duty. Therefore, no writ petition is maintainable. The adjoining patta land belonging to Sivanthi Adityan was offered to Chennai Rifle Club. The same was handed over for the construction of the additional range by the own efforts of the said Sivanthi Adityan. The Government did not spend any money. Since Chennai Rifle Club is an autonomous body, there is no question of authorisation from the Government for naming the range. So, the State Government has no jurisdiction or control over the affairs of the Club. Thus, Writ of Mandamous cannot be issued." 11. Now, we shall come to W.P.No.8121 of 2003. The prayer in this petition is for Writ of Mandamous for direction to the respondents, namely National Rifle Association of India, B.Sivanthi Adityan and the Sports Authority of India, to conduct the coaching camp well in advance and to direct for award of Rs.50 lakhs each for the actual and punitive damages, etc. 12. The case of the petitioner in this petition is as follows: "Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the respondents. On the suggestion of compromise mooted by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and on the assurance that the petitioner would be extended with all facilities and cooperation to use the range and participate in the events, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. However, such promises were not kept up. The petitioner was not permitted to take part in the Master's Cup competition and straightaway he was made to take participate in the selection competition. Due to lack of training, he was not able to fare well. However, he bettered his national rank from 9th position to 6th position. Instead of selecting the petitioner to represent the country at the World Cup, they coached another person and sent him who did not even participate in the shooting championship. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for direction directing the respondents to conduct coaching camp well in advance and to conduct selection trials to select the Indian team just on the eve of International Meet." 13. According to the first respondent, National Rifle Association of India, New Delhi through its counter, the Apex Court has already held that as between the same parties, the writ petition is not maintainable and the specific observation by the Apex Court is that the writ is not maintainable against the National Rifle Association of India. Even when this writ petition was admitted, this Court had taken note of the judgment of Apex Court and merely admitted for verification whether Sports Authority of India, the third respondent has any role to play in the prayer. The fact that the petitioner has got 9th place in the National Games in Hyderabad, is true. But, the shooting championship for the National Games is organised as an inter-state team event in a different format from that adopted by the International Shooting Sports Federation. Therefore, for the purpose of National team selection and other connected purposes, the ranking in the National Games cannot be taken into consideration. 14. The second respondent Sivanthi Adityan being the Vice President of the first respondent has filed a counter adopting the stand taken by the first respondent. 15. The third respondent, Sports Authority of India, New Delhi would state in its counter as follows: "The Sports Authority of India has no role in conducting trials or making selections for the National teams or for the sports persons. The Sports Authority of India has no say or any control over the National Rifle Association of India, which is an independent autonomous body. National Rifle Association of India has to conduct national competitions, trials and selection and nominates sports persons for coaching camps and the Sports Authority of India, the third respondent only provides facility to the Shooting Range. As such, no coaching camp is granted by the third respondent. 16. We will now deal with W.A.No.794 of 2002. 17. The appellant filed W.P.No.3252 of 2000 for the issue of Mandamus against the respondent to conduct National Shooting Championship without insisting the membership card of some Rifle Club. 18. According to the appellant, the party-in-person, he filed the above writ petition and the same is pending and during the pendency, Sivanthi Adityan asked him to withdraw the same as the matter could be compromised. Therefore, he requested this Court to allow him to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition. However, the Writ Court merely dismissed the writ petition without giving such a liberty, even though the petitioner was not present in the Court on that day. Challenging the same, the writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant contenting that the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed without giving liberty to the appellant by filing a fresh petition while withdrawing the writ petition. 19. According to the respondent, the petitioner was not present in the Court when the order was passed and as such, the respondent cannot be accused of having opposed the liberty to file fresh petition and the prayer in the writ petition also is not maintainable in view of the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.1072 and 1073 of 2000. 20. We will now take up the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.368 of 20 03. 21. According to the petitioner, the party-in-person, the equipments and Range, both belong to the Tamil Nadu State and without any authority, Sivanthi Adityan installed them in his place and Sivanthi Adityan had stated in his counter in W.P.No.542 of 1999 as if the same was his private property and so, this statement is belatedly lie and having said so in W.P.No.542 of 1999, he has filed a counter-affidavit in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 stating that he ensured that sufficient funds were generated through well-wishers for construction of the shooting ranges and as such, Sivanthi Adityan has misled the Court earlier and uttered falsehood that the land belongs to him exclusively and also the Range building belongs to him. This demonstrates his lack of honesty and bona fide. Further, the promise that was given that the petitioner would be given all concessions, while withdrawing W.A.No.794 of 2002 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999, was not kept up. Hence, this petition for contempt. 22. Sivanthi Adityan, the second respondent in the contempt petition opposed the petition contending that there is no variation between his counter-affidavits filed in W.P.No.542 of 1999 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999. It is his consistent case that Range-B belongs to the Government and Range-A land belongs to him and the construction was done by him exclusively out of his money as well as the money collected from his well-wishers and neither the building nor the lands belong to Rifle Club and as such, there is no false statement. While W.P.M.P.No.35 34 of 2003 and W.A.M.P.No.543 of 2003 in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W. A.No.794 of 2003 were taken up for hearing, the petitioner did not conduct himself properly in the Court and the same was adversely commented upon by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of V.S. Sirpurkar, J and F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J, while the final order was passed and costs of Rs.2,000/- was imposed condemning his act, however, the same was not paid. On the other hand, the petitioner published one issue of news letter, called FLAWS making scandalous allegations against the conduct of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and also against Justice V.S.Sirpurkar and the same was openly distributed in the corridors of this Court and the newsletter was personally served on the counsel for the respondent by the petitioner himself. As such, this conduct of the petitioner would amount to contempt and suitable proceeding has to be initiated against him. 23. We have heard the arguments from the party-in-person and from the counsel for all the respondents at length. We have given our anxious consideration to their respective submissions. 24. The main objection raised by the counsel for the respondents in the writ petitions is that the writ is not maintainable as against the respondent since the respondent is not an instrumentality or agency of a State under Article 12 so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Mr.Kaaruppan, the party-in-person would cite number of authorities to establish that the writ is maintainable. Similarly, Mr.P.S.Raman, the counsel for the respondent also would cite several authorities to substantiate his contention with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. With a view to decide the maintainability question, this Court issued notice to the Advocate General to elaborate on this point and to give his opinion in the light of various judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court with regard to the point in question. 25. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, the learned Advocate General would appear before this Court and cite number of authorities for both the propositions. The judgments cited by him for the proposition that the writ is maintainable, are as follows: (i) ROHTAS INDUSTRIES vs. ITS UNION (AIR 1976 SC 425) ; (ii) SHRI ANADI MUKTA SADGURU S.M.V.S.J.M.S.TRUST vs. V.R.RUDANI (AIR 1989 SC 1607) ; (iii) MADRAS LABOUR UNION vs. BINNY LIMITED (1995 (I) C.T.C. 73) ; (iv) SOUTH ARCOT DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. EMPLOYEES ASSN. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (1998 (III) C.T.C. 143) ; (v) U.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. CHANDRA BHAN DUBEY ( 1999 (I) C.T.C. 467 ) (SC) ; (vi) THANIKACHALAM.M. vs. MADURANTHAKAM AGRICULTURAL RODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY (FB) ( 2000 (IV) C.T.C. 556 ) ; (vii) SEKKILAR vs. KRISHNAMOORTHY ( 1951 (II) M.L.J. 568 ) ; The above judgments would show that the Mandamous can be issued to any person or authority performing public duty and the same will lie even against a private party under special circumstances. 26. Similarly, the Advocate General would cite following three decisions, where the guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court that the private institute is not a State and therefore, the writ is not maintainable: (i) VST INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS' UNION ( 2001 (1) S.C.C. 298 ); (ii) MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD. vs. MYSORE PAPER MILLS OFFICERS ASSOCN.(AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 609 ); (iii) G.BASSI REDDY vs. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. (AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1764 ). 27. Before dealing with this question in the light of the citations referred to above, it would be better to refer to the orders passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court relating to the same question between the parties. 28. The Apex Court in S.L.P.Nos.1072 and 1073 in which similar issue has been raised between the same parties and decided on 21.1.2000, passed the following order: "We do not think that a writ petition would lie against the first respondent and there is nothing in the writ petition which suggests that it would or even avers that it would. Secondly, we do not think that it is for this Court to interfere in decisions as to who should or should not be a representative of the country in a sporting event. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed." 29. In the light of the said order, W.P.No.7975 of 2001 filed by the same petitioner against one of the respondents was dismissed by Shanugam, J. on 19.6.2001 stating that writ is not maintainable. The relevant observation is as follows: "In my view, the above writ petition is not maintainable on more than one grounds. Firstly, the relief sought for is for a declaration that the respondents should not conduct the championship from 9th April to 18th April. The competition has already been over and therefore, without quashing the competition and its results, the prayer cannot be sustained. Secondly, the counsel taking notice on behalf of the first respondent furnished before me a copy of the order of the Supreme Court in S. L.P.Nos.1072-1072/2000 dated 21.01.2000, wherein the petitioner's Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. ...... The judgment between the inter-se parties is binding on the petitioner as well as this Court. The petitioner has not made out any case or averred, as set out in the Supreme Court's order that the writ petition will lie against the first respondent." 30. Likewise, the Division Bench of this Court consisting of V.S. Sirpurkar, J and F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah,J dismissed W.P.M.P.No.3534 of 2 003 and W.A.M.P.No.543 of 2003 in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.A.No.794 of 2002 which arose out of the same proceeding, and declined to grant interim relief, by the order dated 4.2.2003 on the same ground in the light of the observation of the Apex Court. The relevant portions of the order of the Division Bench are as follows: "In response to the above said contentions, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would contend that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the writ itself was not maintainable, there is no scope for considering any of the prayers of the petitioner in these Miscellaneous Petitions. We find force in the contentions of the learned counsel. Further as regards the petitioner's contention that there was a similar Division Bench order in W.M.P.No.30005 of 1999 in this very Writ Petition dated 28-12-1999 and that the same benefit should be extended this time also, it will have to be held that even that cannot also be considered in his favour, in view of the final orders passed in that very W.M.P. on 10-2-2000 holding that when the petitioner has filed a public interest litigation, he could not be permitted to have a relief in the W.M.P. to quench his personal grievances. " 31. Similarly, this Court consisting of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Justice K.Govindarajan, while admitting W.P.No.8121 of 2003 and declining to grant interim relief, would refer to S.L.P.Nos.1072 and 1073 of 2000 dated 21.1.2000 and would hold in the order dated 28.3.2003 that the writ petition is not maintainable against the first respondent, namely the National Rifle Association of India as held by the Supreme Court order and the writ petition against the second respondent would not lie as he is a Vice President of the National Rifle Association of India. However, the writ petition was admitted by the Division Bench as far as the third respondent is concerned in order to verify that the third respondent, namely the Sports Authority of India, New Delhi has got any role or control in the affairs of the first respondent, namely the National Rifle Association of India. It is also observed in the said order that unless it is held emphatically that the first respondent, the National Rifle Association of India is controlled by the third respondent, the Sports Authority of India, New Delhi, it is not possible for this Court to issue any direction as the main issue can be settled only in the writ petition. 32. Therefore, the First Bench as well as the Second Bench, while dealing with the interim applications in W.P.No.8121 of 2003 and in W. A.No.794 of 2002 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999 respectively, would hold that in the light of the observation made by the Apex Court in S.L.P. Nos.1072-1073 of 2000 between the parties concerned, the writ is not maintainable. 33. In the light of the above observation of the two Benches of this Court, we are asked to consider the question again. 34. As correctly pointed out by the Advocate General,