Remanded

David John v. the District Collector

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021WP(C)/2057/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the 1st respondent's authority as ex-officio President of the Thrissur District Rifle Association due to a conflict between bye-laws and the Kerala Sports Act, the single-judge Bench declined to decide on the merits but directed the 3rd respondent (Government) to conduct a hearing and ensure the election is held in accordance with the law within two months.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent was directed to conduct a hearing regarding the grievance, ensure an election is conducted in accordance with the law, hear all affected parties, and conclude proceedings within two

David John Vs the District Collector — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2057 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DAVID JOHN AGED 40 YEARS SON OF PD JOHNSON, PUDUKADAN HOUSE, CHEROOR ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.

¶8

BY ADVS. PRAVEEN.H. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR.

¶11

2 THE THRISSUR DISTRICT RIFLE ASSOCIATION, AQUATICS COMPLEX, KARUNAKARAN NAMBIYAR ROAD, THRISSUR-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA*

¶13

(SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 01.09.2021)

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY SRI.TITTO THOMAS

¶15

ADV. SRI. N. MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2057 OF 2019

¶18

¶19

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

===================

¶21

WP(C) No. 2057 OF 2019

¶22

=================== Dated this the 1^st day of September 2021

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

According to the petitioner, he is a life member of the Thrissur District Rifle Association. According to the petitioner, earlier committee was elected during 2014 and its term expired during October 2018. The District Collector, by virtue of his post is considered as the Ex-officio President of the 2^nd respondent sports organization as per the bye law. The specific case of the petitioner is that, the Kerala Sports Act got extensively amended during 2015, and as per Section 31(1A)(iv), President is an office bearer who has to be elected by the General Body and when a candidate wishes to get re-elected to a consecutive term he has to get 2/3rd majority and the candidate cannot be an office bearer for

¶25

WP(C) NO. 2057 OF 2019

¶26

¶27

more than 12 years. The case of the petitioner is that, as per

¶28

the scheme of the Amendment Act, the 1^st respondent can

¶29

not any longer hold the post of President taking camouflage

¶30

of the provisions of the bye law, when the mandate of the

¶31

statute is otherwise. Hence, this writ petition is filed with the

¶32

following prayers;

¶33

“ i. Issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon the 1^st respondent to show cause as to under what authority she is holding the post of President of the Thrissur District Rifle Association.

¶34

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1^st respondent to take up Exhibit P2 representation and take a decision thereon.

¶35

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1^st respondent to notify the post of President also in the ensuing elections to the 2^nd respondent association;

¶36

iv. Pass such other orders or reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice. ”

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State Attorney for the 1^st and 3^rd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 2057 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. According to the learned

¶41

counsel, the 1^st respondent has no authority to continue as President of the association. The learned counsel submitted that, the election is to be conducted as per the amended Kerala Sports Act.

¶42

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also submitted that, there is a conflict between the bye law of the association and the provisions in the Kerala Sports Act. The grievance of the 2^nd respondent is that, if there is no elected body as per the Act, the affiliation from the Kerala Sports Council and Kerala State Rifle Association will be cancelled that will affect the prospects and future of the sports men.

¶43

I don't want to go to the merit of this case. Admittedly, the term of the earlier committee over and now the 1^st respondent is the ex-officio president. There is a dispute about the power of the 1^st respondent to continue as the President. It is conceded by both parties that, there is a

¶44

WP(C) NO. 2057 OF 2019

¶45

¶46

conflict between the bye law and the provisions of the Kerala Sports Act about the conduct of the election. In such circumstances, according to me, the interest of the sports men is to be protected. For that purpose, according to me, the government has to be intervene in this matter. The 3^rd respondent will look into this matter and see that there is an elected body in accordance to law. The contentions of the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent that the provisions of Kerala Sports Act is to be adopted and the election is to be conducted based on that is also to be look into by the 3^rd respondent. A hearing is to be given to the petitioner and the 1^st & 2^nd respondents. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner;

¶47

The 3^rd respondent will hear the petitioner and the 1^st & 2^nd respondents about the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and see that an election is conducted in accordance to law.

¶48

The 3^rd respondent will hear all other affected

¶49

WP(C) NO. 2057 OF 2019

¶50

¶51

parties also before passing the final orders.

¶52

The 3^rd respondent will conclude the proceedings

¶53

as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

¶54

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

The 3^rd respondent is free to conduct the hearing either physically or virtually.

¶56

The status quo as on today will continue regarding the affiliation of the 2^nd respondent, till a decision is taken by the 3^rd respondent as directed above.

¶57

(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶58

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶59

¶60

WP(C) NO. 2057 OF 2019

¶61

¶62

¶63

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶64

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION.

¶65

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/12/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶66

EXHIBIT P3

¶67

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.F.5211/2011-SP-I ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS DATED 03/04/2012.

¶68

// True Copy // PA To Judge

David John v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

David John v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palamadathil Kotyat Pathumma Vs Kaithavalappil Khader Haji, S/O. Koya

Parvathy Sonia Suraj @ Sonia Skaria Vs Pradhan Mantri Vidya Lakshmi Karyakram( Vidya Lakshmi Portal)

A. Thulaseedharan Nair and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Dr.Naveen K Vs the Principal, Government Medical College

Sabu C Vs the Chenkal Grama Panchayath

Sc/St Employees Welfare Association of Bsnl, Kerala Circle Vs the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited