JUDGMENT 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 15.6.1998, 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 14.7.1998. 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. Though the said amount was not paid, a Demand Draft for Rs.1,500 was sent on 14.7.1998. 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 counter-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 Sec.3, 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 Art.12 of the Constitution. Chennai Rifle Club is neither controlled by the State nor governed by any State. 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 readmission 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 Art.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 RangeA 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 mandamus cannot be issued." 11. Now, we shall come to W.P.No.8121 of 2003. 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 mandamus cannot be issued." 11. Now, we shall come to W.P.No.8121 of 2003. The prayer in this petition is for Writ of mandamus 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. 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 interstate 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. 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 Contempt Petition No.368 of 2003. 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 wellwishers 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. 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 wellwishers 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.3534 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 Art.12 so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Mr.Karuppan, 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. On the other hand, Mr.Karuppan, 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 v. Its Union, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 425; (ii) Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R.Rudani, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1607; (iii) Madras Labour Union v. Binny Limited, (1995)1 C.T.C. 73 ; (iv) South Arcot District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Employees Association, v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (1998)3 C.T.C. 143 ; (v) U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, (1999)1 C.T.C. 467; (vi) Thanikachalam, M. v. Maduranthakam Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society, (2000)3 M.L.J. 722 : (2000)4 C.T.C. 556 (F.B.); (vii) Sekkilar v. Krishnamoorthy, (1951)2 M.L.J. 568 . The above judgments would show that the mandamus 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) V.S.T. Industries Limited v. V.S.T. Industries Workers’ Union, (2001)1 S.C.C. 298 ; (ii) Mysore Paper Mills Limited v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 609; (iii) G.Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 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. 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 Shanmugam, 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.1072-1073 of 2000 dated 21.1.2000, wherein the petitioner’s Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. ......The judgment between the interse 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 2003 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 28121999 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. 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.10721073 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, it is the ratio decidendi observed by the Apex Court that if the rights are purely of a private character, no mandamus could be issued and if the management is purely a private body with no public duty, mandamus would not lie. 35. It is also held by the Supreme Court that the question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found, then the body is a State within the Art.12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. 36. Further, in some of the other decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it is held that writ would lie even against a private party, but in such cases, the writ is maintainable where the private party was discharging a public duty or a public function and where the monstrosity of the situation which affects the rights of a citizen need to be remedied. 37. So, there is no difficulty in holding that the Chennai Rifle Club or the National Rifle Association of India would not be construed to be a State within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution. 38. The only point is whether the respondent who is considered to be a private party has been discharging a public duty or public function and whether the monstrosity of the situation would affect the right of the party-in-person, the petitioner herein. 39. 38. The only point is whether the respondent who is considered to be a private party has been discharging a public duty or public function and whether the monstrosity of the situation would affect the right of the party-in-person, the petitioner herein. 39. According to the respondents, the Chennai Rifle Club does not perform any public duty nor does it have a public duty and there is no monstrosity in the running of the Club requiring interference in the writ jurisdiction. It is the specific case of the respondent Sivanthi Adityan that RangeA has been put up by him in his personal property without any financial assistance from the State and the same was offered to the Chennai Rifle Club for its use. Further, it is stated that there is no other proven misconduct or maladministration requiring the Club to be vested with the State as prayed for in W.P.No.20425 of 1999. 40. Mr.Karuppan, though would elaborately argue on the basis of several decisions, would not be able to give any material to show that the Chennai Rifle Club has been performing any public function or it has a public duty. Further, no material was placed to show that there is misconduct or maladministration in the Club requiring the Club to be acquired by the State nor there is monstrosity of the situation which would affect the right of the petitioner. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that this is a Public Interest Litigation, especially when the party-in-person has obtained personal benefits through the interim orders and subsequently, when he chose to withdraw the writ petitions on the assurance given by the respondent that he would be given concessions and further, on feeling aggrieved that full concessions have not been given to him by the respondent, he thought it fit to approach the First Bench to restore the writ petitions and writ appeal though they were earlier withdrawn. 41. As stated earlier, while the interim applications were dealt with by the First Bench as well as the Second Bench in these writ petitions, namely W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121 of 2003 and W.A.No.794 of 2002, they have followed the observation made by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.10721073 of 2000 dated 21.1.2000. 41. As stated earlier, while the interim applications were dealt with by the First Bench as well as the Second Bench in these writ petitions, namely W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121 of 2003 and W.A.No.794 of 2002, they have followed the observation made by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.10721073 of 2000 dated 21.1.2000. Under those circumstances, we are unable to take a different view from that of the First Bench and the Second Bench, that too, when the said finding was given on the basis of the Apex Court’s decision which is binding on this Court also. 42. The wording contained in S.L.P.Nos.1072-1073 of 2000 would not be said that the ratio has not been decided. On the other hand, in the absence of any material to show that Chennai Rifle Club would come under the State, we cannot hold otherwise. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that these writ petitions are not maintainable. 43. Even in spite of our above view that the writ is not maintainable, we thought of suggesting to the Chennai Rifle Club to consider his readmission as it is claimed by Mr.Karuppan that he won several medals in the National Shooting Championship from 1992 to 2002 and as such, he must be given opportunity to go and participate in the National level as well as in the International level so that he would get a name for India in the International level. Therefore, we directed the counsel for the respondents Mr.P.S.Raman to collect the particulars about the performance record of the petitioner Mr.Karuppan in the National and State Level Championship from the beginning till date. Therefore, we directed the counsel for the respondents Mr.P.S.Raman to collect the particulars about the performance record of the petitioner Mr.Karuppan in the National and State Level Championship from the beginning till date. Accordingly, the counsel for the respondents collected the datas and filed a memo giving the details which are as follows: “National Shooting Championship conducted by the National Rifle Association of India: S.No. Year Event Score Rank 1 37th NSCC Oct, 1994 Trap 87 20/28 2 38th NSCC 1995 Trap 75 17/24 3 39th NSCC Feb, 1996 Trap 87 15/28 4 40th NSCC Jan, 1997 Trap 89 13/30 (Team won Bronze medal) 40th NSCC Jan, 1997 Skeet 15 15/21 5 41th NSCC 1998 Trap 71 20/27 6 42th NSCC 1999 Trap 97 8/18 42th NSCC 1999 Double Trap 72 16/26 42th NSCC 1999 Skeet 68 No rank 7 46th NSCC Dec, 2002 Trap 84 20/22 46th NSCC Dec, 2002 Double Trap 86 23/27 STATE LEVEL CHAMPIONSHIP CONDUCTED BY THE CHENNAI RIFLE CLUB S.No. Year Event Score Rank 1 26th TNSCC Oct, 2000 Trap 28/50 4/17 26th TNSCC Oct, 2000 Double Trap 26/50 4/15 26th TNSCC Oct, 2000 Skeet 19/50 6/17 2 28th TNSCC Jan, 2002 Trap 30/50 4/12 28th TNSCC Jan, 2002 Double Trap 23/50 6/14 28th TNSCC Jan, 2002 Skeet 21/50 7/18 3 29th TNSCC Oct, 2002 Trap 29/50 6/18 29th TNSCC Oct, 2002 Double Trap 35/50 3/16 (Bronze) 29th TNSCC Oct, 2002 Skeet 24/50 7/19 No State level championships were held between 1993 to 1998. In the last tournament (24th TNSCC) Mr.Karuppan won gold medal in Trap in 1992.” 44. These details would make it clear that Mr.Karuppan won gold medal in Trap in 1992 and Bronze medal in the year 2002 in Double Trap. In other events, he has received some ranks, but did not enter into the Topper’s list. But, these details would certainly show that he has got sufficient talent in shooting. The data given in the memo would reveal that he participated both prior to the filing of the writ petition and also participated in the Shooting Championship in pursuance of the interim reliefs granted by this Court in various writ petitions and obtained some ranks and medals. 45. The data given in the memo would reveal that he participated both prior to the filing of the writ petition and also participated in the Shooting Championship in pursuance of the interim reliefs granted by this Court in various writ petitions and obtained some ranks and medals. 45. As a matter of fact, the First Bench of this Court while declining to grant the interim relief in W.P.No.8121 of 2003 on 28.3.2003 and expressing the doubt about the maintainability of the writ petition, would complement Mr.Karuppan by observing that there is no doubt in the talent of Mr.Karuppan in shooting. 46. On this basis, we felt that it would be appropriate to give suitable suggestion to the Chennai Rifle Club to give opportunity by readmitting him as a member and also encourage him so as to enable him to participate in the National level as well as in the International level. However, this aspect would be considered later. 47. In Contempt Petition No.368 of 2003, the main point that has been taken by the party-in-person, the petitioner herein is that the respondent Sivanthi Adityan has misled the Court by making a mis-statement in the counter-affidavits filed in W.P.Nos.542 of 1999 and 20425 of 1999. 48. On going through the counter-affidavits referred to above, it is clear that the respondent’s stand regarding the personal ownership of the land and the building in the RangeA is consistent. It is also seen from the counter-affidavits filed by the other respondents including the Government that the land in the RangeA is the personal property of Sivanthi Adityan and the same had been given voluntarily for the exclusive use of the Chennai Rifle Club. 49. According to the respondent Sivanthi Adityan, he never made any misstatement and this contempt petition has been filed making unwarranted allegations in order to harass him,even though he is an upstanding son of this State and former Sheriff of Madras. 50. Though it is stated in the contempt petition by the petitioner that earlier promises given by the respondent to the petitioner while withdrawing W.A.No.794 of 2002 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999 were not kept up and as such, contempt has been committed, this submission would not deserve any consideration for the reason that ultimately, this Court on the request of the petitioner set aside the order permitting withdrawal and ordered for restoration of W.A.No.794 of 2002 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999. Therefore, those things cannot be complained in the present contempt petition. 51. The main attack made by the counsel for the respondent in the contempt petition is that the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as the written consent of the Advocate General which is mandatory has not been obtained. The need for consent of the Advocate General is to ensure that vexatious or vindictive petitions are not presented out of personal vendetta as the Advocate General would act as a filter against abuse of the jurisdiction. 52. Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner himself is guilty of criminal contempt since he has published and circulated a pamphlet called flaws soon after the orders pronounced by the First Bench and the Second Bench in which publication of several references are made criticising the Chief Justice as well as the Judges of the other Division Benches and those references are in gross contempt of Court for which suo motu action should be initiated by this Court. 53. In regard to the first argument relating to the consent of the Advocate General, we do not propose to give any importance to the same as this Court would be very well called upon to decide the contempt issue, since we have taken cognizance of the alleged contemptuous act committed by the respondent. 54. As stated earlier, we do not find any material to show that the respondent Mr.Sivanthi Adityan has made any misstatement before this Court so as to mislead this Court to pass any order in his favour. On the other hand, it has to be stated that his stand is consistent. 55. But, the shocking feature is that the respondent would require this Court to take cognizance of the contempt committed by the petitioner, who filed contempt petition, for having circulated a pamphlet called flaws criticising the First Bench as well as the Second Bench with regard to their functioning, while passing judicial orders in his petitions. 56. The counsel for the respondent would also produce in the typed set the copy of the flaws, a news letter, printed, published and circulated by Karuppan, the party-in-person. As a matter of fact, it is the contention of the counsel that the pamphlet was served personally on the counsel Mr.P.S.Raman by the petitioner. 57. Originally, we thought of ignoring this. The counsel for the respondent would also produce in the typed set the copy of the flaws, a news letter, printed, published and circulated by Karuppan, the party-in-person. As a matter of fact, it is the contention of the counsel that the pamphlet was served personally on the counsel Mr.P.S.Raman by the petitioner. 57. Originally, we thought of ignoring this. Since Mr.P.S.Raman pointed out the portions published in the flaws, circulated by Karuppan criticising the Hon’ble Chief Justice and other Judges of this Court, we decided to initiate proceedings against Karuppan. Mr.P.S.Raman, the counsel would also point out that in the very same flaws, Karuppan has criticised him by making averments wounding his feelings. Therefore, we directed Mr.P.S.Raman to file his affidavit. Accordingly, he filed the same. In pursuance of the said affidavit, we thought it fit to issue suo motu notice to Karuppan. Since we decided to initiate suo motu proceedings against Karuppan, we had an enquiry in the chamber as incamera proceedings. 58. On going through the wordings in the flaws, it is clear that they would certainly be construed to be contumacious, since there is a sarcastic criticism against the Judges of this Court including the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court. At the time of issuing notice, we have suitably advised Karuppan by asking him to realise his mistake in printing and publishing the remarks against the Judges of this Court in which he is practising and then file an affidavit. 59. We have sufficiently indicated our mind that Karuppan, the petitioner herein should not have resorted to such activities. However, we wanted to give opportunity to him to realise his mistake and asked him to file a suitable affidavit so as to enable this Court to drop the proceedings against him. Then, the matter was adjourned by giving sufficient time. But to our shock, the affidavit has been filed by the petitioner giving statement justifying his act and stated that it would not amount to contempt and even if it is a contempt, that must be heard only by the First Bench and not by this Bench. 60. Though in the first paragraph, Karuppan would state that, “at the outset I profoundly apologize for my conduct having offended the sentiments of the Hon’ble Court though prima facie”, he went on saying that, “I went through the publication and found that nothing was contumacious. 60. Though in the first paragraph, Karuppan would state that, “at the outset I profoundly apologize for my conduct having offended the sentiments of the Hon’ble Court though prima facie”, he went on saying that, “I went through the publication and found that nothing was contumacious. The idea of publishing the same is not with any ulterior motive except for making known to the multitude of curious advocates.” In the continuing portions covering about 10 paragraphs, he went on justifying his act in making the others to know about the proceedings held in the Court. Thus, it is clear that he has not realised the blunder mistake committed by him. On the other hand, he would venture to justify the same. 61. Yet another shocking feature is that when the petitioner argued the matter before the Second Bench consisting of Justice V.S.Sirpurkar and Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah, he criticised the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.1072-1073 of 2000 and the above Division Bench condemned the said act of Karuppan, the petitioner, and consequently, while dismissing the miscellaneous applications, imposed costs of Rs.2,000 by the order dated 4.2.2003. To set aside the said order, another application has been filed by him before the same Division Bench and the same was dismissed on 10.2.2003 holding that the petitioner has filed the said petition which has vexatious nature. Challenging the said order, Mr.Karuppan filed S.L.P.Nos.4501-4502 of 2003 before the Apex Court and the same were dismissed on 6.3.2003. In that order, the following direction was given: “We, therefore, see no ground to entertain the S.L.P. However, we would like to observe that the High Court may dispose of the writ appeal expeditiously along with the connected matter, if any.” By this, the order of the Second Bench has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. 62. After pronouncement of the above order, Mr.Karuppan requested the Supreme Court pleading for deletion of the direction to pay exemplary costs of Rs.2,000 as he never meant to pass any disparaging comments against any Court. But, the Supreme Court declined for deletion and observed in the order that it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate petition in the High Court seeking deletion of the said direction, if he so chooses. 63. This order was passed on 6.3.2003. But, the Supreme Court declined for deletion and observed in the order that it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate petition in the High Court seeking deletion of the said direction, if he so chooses. 63. This order was passed on 6.3.2003. When Mr.Karuppan was asked by this Court whether he had either filed an application before the concerned Bench for deletion of direction to pay costs or made payment of costs, he said that he neither paid costs nor filed any such application. The costs was ordered to be paid by the Second Bench of this Court by the order dated 4.2.2003. The same was confirmed by the Apex Court on 6.3.2003. But, till date, there is no move on the part of the petitioner either to file an application for deletion of the direction to pay costs in the same Bench or to make payment of costs. Thus, it is clear that he is not inclined to comply with either of the directions given by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. 64. In this context, we have to see the nature of the act committed by the petitioner in having printed and distributed the pamphlet containing criticism of Judges. 65. As stated earlier, as we directed Mr.P.S.Raman who is appearing for Mr.Sivanthi Aditan, the second respondent in the contempt petition, he filed an affidavit on 4.9.2003 for the limited purpose of stating that the averment the petitioner Karuppan published one news letter named “flaws” Volume IX Edition, 2003 is true to his personal knowledge. The following is the relevant paragraphs: “I respectfully state that a printed copy of the said publication was being distributed by Thiru R.Karuppan openly in the Madras High Court and one such copy was personally handed over to me by Thiru R.Karuppan in the corridor of the High Court outside the Court hall of Hon’ble The Chief Justice. This happened a few weeks after the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated 4.2.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.3534 of 2003 and W.A.M.P.No.543 of 2003 in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.A.No.794 of 2002. My office colleague Thiru C.Seethapathy, Advocate was also personally present when this incident had happened. This happened a few weeks after the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated 4.2.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.3534 of 2003 and W.A.M.P.No.543 of 2003 in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.A.No.794 of 2002. My office colleague Thiru C.Seethapathy, Advocate was also personally present when this incident had happened. I further respectfully submit that the aforesaid publication contained several references to me personally and also critical of the manner of my conducting the various cases which he has filed several of which criticisms were aimed at demeaning my character and professional integrity as well as my competence.” 66. While filing this affidavit, Mr.P.S.Raman, the counsel requested this Court to go through the said publication of news letter called "flaws" and also to take note of the context in which the said publication of pamphlet was made criticising the Judges including the Chief Justice and himself. As mentioned in his affidavit, this distribution of pamphlet by Mr.Karuppan in the corridor of the High Court outside the Court hall of Hon’ble The Chief Justice happened a few weeks after the judgment of the Division Bench consisting of Justice V.S.Sirpurkar and Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah, dated 4.2.2003. 67. Before going into the publication, namely, flaws, it would be better to refer to the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court about the conduct of the petitioner Karuppan in the order dated 4.2.2003. The relevant observation is this: "Though Mr.R.Karuppan mentioned in para 12 of his Affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.3253 of 2000 as against which the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.794 of 2002 has been filed by stating that dismissal of the S.L.P. and the observations made therein are against the Constitution provisions and void ab initio, while taking strong exception to usage of such expressions, we are of the firm view that there is no warrant for him to charecterise the order as such and in any event, the said order squarely covers the present proceedings in all fours. Not satisfied with such unwarranted comments made in the Affidavit sworn to by him on 1822000, he also attempted to reiterate such a stand before us. Taking strong exception to that he was directed not to make any such attempt before us. Not satisfied with such unwarranted comments made in the Affidavit sworn to by him on 1822000, he also attempted to reiterate such a stand before us. Taking strong exception to that he was directed not to make any such attempt before us. ......we are of the view for having made irresponsible and unwarranted comments about the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21.1.2000 in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.1072 to 1073 of 2000, the petitioner has exposed himself for taking appropriate action against him. But since we have decided to dismiss the petitioner’s miscellaneous petitions, we refrain from taking any such action except to award exemplary costs while dismissing these miscellaneous petitions. .......In the result, the present miscellaneous petitions are dismissed both on the ground that they are not maintainable as well as devoid of merits with costs of Rs.2,000."Thus, it is clear that his conduct criticising the Supreme Court’s order was already condemned by the Second Division Bench. 68. The above order dated 4.2.2003 was sought to be set aside by filing another application in W.A.M.P.No.715 of 2003 in W.A.No.794 of 2002 before the very same Bench stating that one of the Presiding Judge of the Bench had given an impression that he was partial towards other party. While dealing with the said ground, the Second Bench would hold as follows: "In this petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside our above said order dated 4.2.2003 and also direct listing of the case before some other Bench. while seeking for the above prayer, the petitioner would contend that though he argued the above said applications before us, he had its own reservations about one of the Presiding Judge of the Bench as according to him, he gained an impression that, "justice may not be seemingly done. ....At the outset, we brand this petition as a vexatious one, inasmuch as, we are of the firm view that though by couching the prayer in an innocuous manner in this miscellaneous petition, the petitioner really wants to review our order dated 4.2.2003 without preferring appropriate petition for that purpose complying with the requirement of law in regard to the filing of a review application. ....As regards his contention regarding "justice having not been done seemingly", the whole affair is unfortunate." 69. ....As regards his contention regarding "justice having not been done seemingly", the whole affair is unfortunate." 69. Giving the details as to how several opportunities were given to argue the matter on the earlier occasions, the Second Division Bench ultimately dismissed the application. Only thereafter, the petitioner filed S.L.P.Nos.4501 and 4502 of 2003 before the Supreme Court and the same also were dismissed on 6.3.2003 declining to entertain his claim and also refusing to delete the direction in regard to the payment of exemplary costs of Rs.2,000. As already indicated, till now the payment has not been made nor any application has been filed before the Court concerned for deletion by utilising the opportunity given by the Supreme Court. 70. On the other hand, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.8121 of 2003 seeking interim orders before the First Bench. The First Bench headed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, while holding that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the Apex Court order dated 21.1.2003, would admit the petition for a limited purpose to verify that the third respondent, namely the Sports Authority of India has got any role in the affairs of the first respondent, namely National Rifle Association of India. However, the interim relief sought for in the miscellaneous applications was refused to be granted. 71. Thus, Mr.Karuppan was not successful before the First Bench as well as before the Second Bench in getting any orders in his favour. On the other hand, he invited the orders from both the Benches giving finding about misconduct and also the maintainability of the writ petition. This must have irked Mr.Karuppan. In that context, the publication, namely flaws came to be made. The flaws copy in Tamil has been given in the typed set. The English translation also has been filed. 72. Let us quote some of the recitals contained in the said flaws criticising both our Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice V.S.Sirpurkar who headed the Second Bench: "A writ appeal was filed opposing this (Justice Jagadeesan’s order). The Chief Justice took it up for hearing. Karuppan sought that two petitions seeking to allow him to participate in the competition that is held before the Indian team is selected and to permit him to practice at the Chennai Rifle Club be taken up for hearing. The Chief Justice took it up for hearing. Karuppan sought that two petitions seeking to allow him to participate in the competition that is held before the Indian team is selected and to permit him to practice at the Chennai Rifle Club be taken up for hearing. The Chief Justice could have taken it up for hearing and granted an interim order. But it is not clear why he posted them before Justice Sirpurkar. ..... However, he filed the counter only on behalf of Sivanthi Adithan. In that counter too all the charges made by Karuppan were not denied. The usual practice is that in cases relating to competitions and examination the verdict would be delivered immediately. That is how judgments were given since 1994. However, Justice Sirpurkar casually heard the case and without passing any orders posted it for further hearing the next day. The next day the part heard case was listed last on his call list. Karuppan who waited till afternoon lost his patience and wrote a letter to the Chief Justice asking him to transfer the case to some other Judge, as he did not have confidence in Justice Sirpurkar. ....But the Chief Justice sent the note to Justice Sirpurkar asking him to expedite the hearing in the petitions. Since the petitioner was an advocate and doubted the judgmental capacity of the Judge, though the suspicion could be baseless, Justice Sirpurkar should have transferred the case to some other Judge. .... However, it was proved that Justice Sirpurkar was biased while attempting to cover up the matter relating to the selection of Sivanthi Adithan’s son. ....After thinking the whole night, Karuppan came to a decision. He remembered that Justice Sirpurkar had not delivered the verdict in a cheating case against Sivanthi Adithan in 1999 though it was proved that the latter was guilty. The same Judge was now saying that the advocate appearing for Sivanthi Adithan need not argue about Sivanthi Adithan’s son. Therefore, he (Karuppan) should not argue his case further before Justice Sirpurkar. ... Justice Sirpurkar’s present judgment was contradictory to his verdict in 1998. Since he had not accepted the verdicts delivered by three benches, he should refer it to a larger bench." 73. Therefore, he (Karuppan) should not argue his case further before Justice Sirpurkar. ... Justice Sirpurkar’s present judgment was contradictory to his verdict in 1998. Since he had not accepted the verdicts delivered by three benches, he should refer it to a larger bench." 73. So, these portions would indicate that Mr.Karuppan in the news letter called flaws has criticised the act of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in having declined to grant interim order in the two petitions in the appeal filed against Justice Jagadeesan’s order and the conduct of the Chief Justice in posting them before Justice Sirpurkar. Further, almost in all the paragraphs in the news letter, he criticised Justice Sirpurkar stating that he is biased and he doubted the judgmental capacity of Justice Sirpurkar and also he did not have any confidence in Justice Sirpurkar. He would also go to the extent of saying that Justice Sirpurkar in the year 1999 had given a verdict in a cheating case in favour of Sivanthi Adithan, though it was proved that the latter was guilty. 74. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the other orders passed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice and the Second Bench would reveal that several interim reliefs were given by them earlier in favour of the petitioner Karuppan. On one occasion, though the writ appeal and other application have been withdrawn on the assurance given by the respondent for giving concession to participate in the National Tournaments and after enjoying the concession, the petitioner requested the First Bench to set aside the order permitting him for withdrawal and to restore the main petition. In fact, only at the intervention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the respondents have conceded to give all concessions and on that basis, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn. 75. There is no dispute in the fact that in pursuance of the interim orders, the petitioner was allowed to participate in some of the tournaments. Even though the concessions given by the respondents on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties, at the benign suggestion made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice have been enjoyed, the Hon’ble Chief Justice without any hesitation allowed the request by restoring the original petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner should not have the feeling that he was not heard fully for the main relief. Similarly, the Second Bench headed by Justice Sirpurkar also earlier granted similar reliefs to the petitioner for participating in the National Tournaments. 76. Despite, this, Mr.Karuppan merely because subsequent applications were not allowed by the First Bench and the Second Bench, made a criticism against the Hon’ble Chief Justice heading the First Bench and Justice Sirpurkar heading the Second Bench. 77. Furthermore, he has also made a scathing criticism against the counsel Mr.P.S.Raman, which is as follows: "Bharat (counsel), who is the son of late V.P.Raman, enjoys the dubious distinction of being the only lawyer in the High Court who would make representations contrary to truth and law without having regard for Judges. Since he does not know law, he has no inhibitions in uttering whatever he wants." This statement also, in our view, is unfortunate as he is emboldened to make any unparliamentary remarks as against the Judges as well as against the counsel appearing for the other side. 78. When this Court went through the earlier orders passed in favour of the petitioner, it is noticed that both the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice Sirpurkar gave the interim reliefs, despite the strong objection raised by the counsel for the respondents, in order to give opportunity to the petitioner who happens to be an advocate to show his talent in the National Tournaments. It is also to be taken note of that Mr.Karuppan is not only a practising advocate, but also was holding a very high position as the President of the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association which consists of several thousands of bar members. Without realising the responsibility, the petitioner thus had indulged in making disparaging remarks about the conduct of the Judges and the lawyers. 79. When this Court issued suo motu proceedings against the petitioner with reference to the publication of flaws, as indicated earlier, this Court advised Mr.Karuppan to realise his mistake and file an affidavit suitably, so that this Court would consider the above act of the petitioner with a lenient view. 80. Despite the indication given by this Court, Mr.Karuppan filed the affidavit dated 7.11.2003 justifying his action of distributing the pamphlet criticising the Judges and the lawyers. The relevant statements in the affidavit are as follows: “I went through the publication and found that nothing was contumacious. 80. Despite the indication given by this Court, Mr.Karuppan filed the affidavit dated 7.11.2003 justifying his action of distributing the pamphlet criticising the Judges and the lawyers. The relevant statements in the affidavit are as follows: “I went through the publication and found that nothing was contumacious. The idea of publishing the same is not with any ulterior motive except for making known to the multitude of curious advocates. ....first respondent and his counsel have overlooked that the alleged act of contempt is not on the face of this Court. So they can only file a contempt application before the first Court, for the Chief Justice’s Court alone is vested with the portfolio of exercising contempt jurisdiction. ...If the respondent is aggrieved personally and if his counsel is also aggrieved, the only course is that each one of them should have filed separate contempt applications for action against me the applicant. ....I had been publishing a news letter called flaws for the past one and half decades are so. It invariably brought out the happenings in the Court. It’s sole objective was to enlighten the advocates fraternity about the happenings in and around the Campus. ......Above all the issue involved is matter of public interest and pertains to a probono action. ....Besides many who followed the case were of the opinion that the matter should be reported to the Chief Justice of India and his companion Judges as well to the President of India. They felt that the matter should be published on their behalf. I accordingly expressed the entire happenings from the day one to till the last orders of the Chief Justice including the happenings at the Supreme Court. .....Faithful honest expositions of the happenings in the Court of law are public proceedings can be published and as well pleaded before any superior Court is the settled legal position which is every body’s knowledge. That cannot give rise to a criminal contempt. .....First respondent has stated that I have made scandalous allegations against the Chief Justice and his companion Judge. I am afraid that there is nothing scandalous to be found. ....Needless to state that this is not the forum even if the allegations were true and that the same should have been moved before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.” 81. .....First respondent has stated that I have made scandalous allegations against the Chief Justice and his companion Judge. I am afraid that there is nothing scandalous to be found. ....Needless to state that this is not the forum even if the allegations were true and that the same should have been moved before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.” 81. Even when the matter was taken up in the chamber during the incamera enquiry, Mr.Karuppan, the party-in-person would reiterate that the statement made in the publication is not contumacious and the idea of publishing the same is only for making known to the multitude of advocates and the bona fide reporting of the experiences of the advocate inside the Court to the members of the fraternity, that too as a leader of the Bar, can never be termed as a contempt and even assuming that the same is contempt, that could be questioned only by a separate proceeding and that too before the First Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and not before this Court. 82. This contention apparently, in our view, is untenable in view of the suo motu power which has been conferred to this Court under Sec.15 of the Act. Further, all these matters were originally posted before the First Bench and on the basis of the administrative orders, it was posted before the Second Bench and later, on the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter has been posted before this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that this Court is within its power to initiate suo motu proceedings against the party-in-person who has admittedly printed and published by serving the copies of the news letter to the advocates including the counsel for the respondent, that to, near the Court hall of the Chief Justice. 83. The submission that the enquiry can be conducted only by the concerned Judge with reference to the contempt lacks substance as the contempt of Court jurisdiction is not to protect an individual Judge, but it is to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. 84. The offence of criminal contempt is divided into two categories. One is publication of any matter which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any Court etc. etc. Second is the doing of any act whatsoever, which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any Court. 85. 84. The offence of criminal contempt is divided into two categories. One is publication of any matter which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any Court etc. etc. Second is the doing of any act whatsoever, which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any Court. 85. The present case would fall under the first category. There is no dispute that the publication and distribution of news letter was made by Mr.Karuppan in the High Court campus by serving the same to the advocates. As we have indicated that the contents of the publication would scandalise both the First Bench and the Second Bench. The petitioner cannot escape by saying that it is only a bona fide report. 86. The expression “bona fide” or “good faith” in criminal jurisprudence has a definite connotation. Its import is totally different from saying that the person concerned has honestly believed the truth of what is said. Before a person proposes to make an imputation on another the author must first make an enquiry into the factum of the imputation which he proposes to make. If he does not do so, he cannot claim that what he did was bona fide, i.e. done in good faith. 87. Sec.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act contains the definition of “criminal contempt” which reads thus: “2(c) ‘Criminal contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which, (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.” The gist of the section is that if any person makes a publication containing the statement which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers the authority of any Court, it would amount to contempt. 88. If the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such Court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One is a wrong done to the Judge personally and the other is a wrong done to the public. 88. If the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such Court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One is a wrong done to the Judge personally and the other is a wrong done to the public. It would be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the public regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement. It is enough if it is likely to interfere with the proper administration of law. 89. The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of Court. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult, but to protect the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted or interfered with. 90. The defamatory publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings the Court into contempt. Any caricature of a Judge calculated to lower the dignity of the Court would destroy, undermine the public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. 91. In order that the Judges may fearlessly and independently act in the discharge of their judicial functions, it is necessary that they should have full liberty to act within the sphere of their activity. 92. A fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if made in good faith and public interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public interest, the Courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances including the person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved. All citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the Courts in the name of fair criticism. All citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the Courts in the name of fair criticism. If the same is not checked, it would destroy the institution itself. Litigant losing in the Court is the first to impute motives to the Judges. 93. Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology. 94. In the instant case, the petitioner himself is an advocate practicing for about 25 years. He has got a special knowledge of law and the functioning of the institution of judiciary. He was also the President of the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association for some years. Therefore, he is expected to know the nature of his act as well as the consequences of the same. 95. As indicated earlier, the petitioner even before the Second Bench headed by Justice Sirpurkar, went on criticising the Supreme Court’s order by stating that the order of the Supreme Court dated 21.1.2000 was against the spirit of the Constitution. Such a criticism was not allowed and ultimately, the Second Bench imposed costs of Rs.2000 finding that his conduct of criticising the order of the Supreme Court was most reprehensible. 96. In the further writ petition filed by the petitioner which came up before the First Bench head by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, he insisted that the interim orders to be passed without any delay. When the First Bench wanted to give time to the other side to file their counter to enable the Court to have a full picture of the case, he asked the First Bench to grant the interim relief immediately. In pursuance of the persistence shown by the petitioner, the First Bench heard the petitioner and other counsel and declined to grant the interim relief. 97. These grievances felt by the petitioner at the hands of the Second Bench and the First Bench had made the petitioner to publish the news letter called flaws and distributed to the lawyers. As noted above, there is a clearcut criticism against the Hon’ble Chief Justice for having not granted the interim relief and also posted the matter before the Second Bench. Similarly, he made a statement with disparaging remarks against Justice Sirpurkar heading the Second Bench that he was biased and his judgment against him was the product out of his partiality towards Mr.Sivanthi Adityan. 98. Similarly, he made a statement with disparaging remarks against Justice Sirpurkar heading the Second Bench that he was biased and his judgment against him was the product out of his partiality towards Mr.Sivanthi Adityan. 98. In this context, we are to note that both the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Sirpurkar have earlier given some orders in favour of the petitioner. When the unfavourable orders obtained by him from the said two Benches which passed those orders after hearing the counsel for parties at length, Mr.Karuppan had hastened to indulge in the process of mudslinging against the Judges concerned even without realising that he was helped and encouraged by the First Bench and Second Bench by providing opportunity to him to participate in the National Tournaments. 99. Further, our Hon’ble The Chief Justice who is able and admirable and who commands respects from one and all in Tamil Nadu, unfortunately has been subjected to unsavoury criticism. Similarly, Justice V.S.Sirpurkar who is known for his nobility and uprightness has also become a target for scandalisation. 100. In this fact situation, we are at a loss to understand as to why Mr.Karuppan has to resort to these intimidating activities against the Judges, even though he has experience for about 25 years in practice and he happened to be the President of the Bar once. If this is not checked, then a situation may arise and by that, the counsel by their intimidating activities would try to obtain orders from the Judges, who may think that granting orders would be better rather than receiving scandalisation or scathing criticism. We cannot allow such a situation to be prevailed any more at any cost. 101. The calculated contemptuous remarks and the sweeping allegations against the Judges, which are derogatory in character not only would amount to casting aspersions in the conduct of Judges in the discharging of their judicial functions but also wounds the dignity of the Court. 102. We cannot allow such a situation to be prevailed any more at any cost. 101. The calculated contemptuous remarks and the sweeping allegations against the Judges, which are derogatory in character not only would amount to casting aspersions in the conduct of Judges in the discharging of their judicial functions but also wounds the dignity of the Court. 102. It is highly painful to note that Mr.Karuppan who is none other than an Advocate practising in the highest Court of the State for long number of years and having been as the President of a great Advocates’ Association, Madras, after having failed to obtain an order in his favour from the First Bench and Second Bench in his own cause has escalatingly scandalised both the Courts by by making allegations which are highly offensive, intimidatory and beyond condonable limit. 103. Even a cursory reading of the remarks in the flaws made against our Hon’ble Chief Justice as well as against Justice Sirpurkar of this Chartered High Court unambiguously shows that the outrageous allegations and potentially prejudicial utterances made by Mr.Karuppan have struck a blow on the judiciary and also seriously sullied the great image and high esteem which the office of the Judge of the High Court carries with it and thus impeded the course of justice. In our opinion, the incident in question is a flagrant onslaught on the independence of the judiciary, destructive of the orderly administration of justice and a challenge to the supremacy of Law. 104. It is true that taking action for contempt of Court against an Advocate, who happened to be the leader of the Bar, shall be regarded as an extreme measure. But, to protect the majesty of law, it becomes the duty of the Court, though painful, to start the cause of taking action for contempt mainly for preserving its dignity. No one including an Advocate who himself is an officer of the Court can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt, if his conduct in relation to the Court interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice. 105. No one including an Advocate who himself is an officer of the Court can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt, if his conduct in relation to the Court interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice. 105. When a member of the Bar is required to be punished for use of contemptuous language against the judiciary, it is highly painful and it pleases none but painful duties have to be performed to uphold the honour and dignity of an individual Judge and his office and the prestige of the institution. 106. In the light of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court in S.K.Sundaram, In re., (2001)2 S.C.C. 171 ,Arundhati Roy, In re., (2002)3 S.C.C. 343 ,P.N.Duda v. P.Shiv Shanker, (1998)3 S.C.C. 167 ,Mahabir Prasad Singh v. M/s.Jacks Aviation Private Limited, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 287,Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 1993 S.C.C. (Crl.) 356 and M.B.Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab, 1991 S.C.C.(Crl.) 897, we are constrained to punish Mr.Karuppan, the party-in-person, since we find him guilty for the offence under Sec.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, he is punished for the same. 107. Sec.12 of the Act provides for punishment of simple imprisonment or fine or with both. We do not propose to send Mr.Karuppan to jail, though the act committed by him is serious which would entail punishment of imprisonment. The reason for the same is that Mr.Karuppan was holding once a very important position as the President of the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association consisting of thousands and thousands of advocates. Similarly, we are not inclined to impose heavy fine. 108. Of course, this Court has got power to impose punishment of imprisonment for a period of six months or to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 or with both. But, as popularly known, the Judiciary has got wide powers, but the greater the power, the greater the restraint. 109. The great Tamil saint Thiruvalluvar says: The translation is: "The King, who desires his rule to prosper on a permanent basis, should make the gesture of severity when awarding punishment, but let the final blow fall lightly." 110. The Judge is one, who having equitably examined any injustice, suitably punishes it, so that it may not be again committed. The Court may be tough in posture, but it has to be merciful in operations. The Judge is one, who having equitably examined any injustice, suitably punishes it, so that it may not be again committed. The Court may be tough in posture, but it has to be merciful in operations. So, let the Courts brandish the rods smartly but lay it on soft. This is a way of imposing punishment as popularly called as "Mercy Seasoning Justice" as quoted by Shakesphere. 111. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that imposing the sentence of small fine would be fine, as it would be taken as a token for the expression of our displeasure over the conduct of Mr.Karuppan, the contemner. Therefore, while we find him guilty for the offence under Sec.2(c) of the Act, we impose a simple fine of Re.1 (One Rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment. 112. At this stage, it may be worthwhile to refer to our decision of giving suggestion to the Chennai Rifle Club to readmit him. While considering this, we cannot forget the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya v. Jaganath, (1994)1 S.C.C. 1 to the effect that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and when the party comes to the Court seeking for the relief, he must come with clean hands and when there is no bona fide in his conduct and when he has adopted intimidating tactics to obtain some orders, this Court would not help those party as it would amount to subverting the justice. 113. Even though we felt that in the light of the medals he obtained in 1992, 1997 and 2002, we are unable to give such suggestion as we are afraid that our suggestion may not be accepted by the Executive Committee of the Chennai Rifle Club in view of the past conduct of the petitioner. The past records of the petitioner would undoubtedly show that he has created enemies in all the quarters. He made a number of baseless allegations without any material against all the respondents in these writ petitions. Even among the Bar members, he has created a situation where some members of the Bar including the counsel for the respondents got aggrieved over the scurrilous allegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court as well as in his news letter distributed to him. Even among the Bar members, he has created a situation where some members of the Bar including the counsel for the respondents got aggrieved over the scurrilous allegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court as well as in his news letter distributed to him. To make the matter worse, he invited strong condemnation from the Judges of this Chartered High Court as well. 114. In this context, we recall an incident which happened in the life of Mr.Abraham Lincoln, who was the President of America. When he contested for the Presidenship of America, out of jealousy, a lot of enemies from several quarters worked against him in order to prevent him from becoming the President. At last, he was elected as the President. As soon as he became the President, he instructed his Private Secretary to inform all his socalled enemies, namely Dignitaries about his visit to their respective houses by fixing date and time. Accordingly, time was fixed. The President went to all the houses of the socalled ‘enemies’ and received their greetings. Then, he came back to the White House. Private Secretary with a polite tone with reluctance asked the President of America as to why he should have taken trouble of going to his enemies’ houses to get their greetings and is it necessary for the President of America to go over to their places as it is very easy for the President being the powerful, the First Citizen of America to destroy his enemies by various means. Mr.Abraham Lincoln swiftly replied that he did only that. To explain, he destroyed all his enemies in a single day by going over to their houses and making them to greet him, thereby the illwill and the enmity they bore against him were completely annihilated. Mr.Abraham Lincoln is not only a role model to Americans but also a classic example to every leader in this world. 115. Mr.Karuppan apparently has not followed this example. When he became the President of Advocates’ Association, he must have followed the path of Mr.Abraham Lincoln, the former President of America by making all his enemies as his friends. On the contrary, he has maintained and created a lot of enemies which resulted in our inability to give our suggestion in favour of Mr.Karuppan to the respondents against whom disparaging remarks have been made without any material. On the contrary, he has maintained and created a lot of enemies which resulted in our inability to give our suggestion in favour of Mr.Karuppan to the respondents against whom disparaging remarks have been made without any material. Hence, we are constrained to refrain ourselves from making any such suggestion. 116. Mr.Karuppan claims himself to be the best shooter winning laurels in the Shooting Range. Refuting his claim, the counsel for the respondents would state that he is only a troublemaker in the Rifle Club. We do not want to go into this controversy. But, one thing is clear. We are not able to hold that he is a good suitor in the Courts of law. 117. To sum up: (i) The writ petitions in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121 of 2003, writ appeal in W.A.No.794 of 2003 and Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No.368 of 2003 are dismissed. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. (ii) In the suo motu contempt proceedings, Mr.Karuppan is found guilty under Sec.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Re.1 (One Rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment. 118. Before parting with this case, we record our full appreciation for the services rendered by Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General for having taken pains in collecting judgments on the question of maintainability and produced before this Court.