Mere Regulatory Or Statutory Control Over District Rifle Association Doesn't Make It 'State' Under Article 12: Kerala High Court

Justice Easwaran S. relying upon Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) and Shabajit Tewary v Union of India (1975), held that a society need not necessarily come under 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

“….only if the control of the State over such body is deep and pervasive, the same would come within the definition of State. On the other hand, if the control is merely regulatory whether under the Statute or otherwise then it would not serve to make the body a State. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the affairs of the 3rd respondent is not maintainable”, stated the Court

The petitioner approached the Court aggrieved by the irregularities in the functioning of the Ernakulam District Rifle Association. The specific grievance was the shortage of pistols for shooting, proper shooting range and violation of provisions of Arms Rules, 2016.

The petitioner submitted a representation pointing out the illegalities before the District Collector who was an ex officio president of the Ernakulam District Rifle Association. He thus seeks a writ of mandamus against the District Collector to take appropriate action.

The Court found that the Sports Counsel of India has de-recognized the Ernakulam District Rifle Association and thus it cannot hold a license under the Arms Act and Rules.

It went on to hold that the Ernakulam District Rifle Association is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court further stated that a writ petition would not lie against a society registered under the Travancore Cochin, Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. It said, "It is now indisputable that no writ petition is maintainable against a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin, Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955"

The Court stated that the District Collector being the Ex-Officio President of the Ernakulam District Rifle Association was also not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. “If that be so, the 1st respondent, who is officiating as the Ex-officio President of the 3rd respondent, is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, stated the Court.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court left open the petitioner's contentions under the Arms Act or the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act before the appropriate forum.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Sharan Shahier

Counsel for Respondent: Advocates Liju.V.Stephen, Indu Susan Jacob, Senior Government Pleader Bimal K Nath

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 254

Case Title: Anand Joseph v The District Collector

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23380 OF 2018

Click here to read/download Order