The nomination procedure adopted by the President of NRAI was deemed illegal and undemocratic, leading to the nullification of the proceedings and the need for fresh elections.

P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. Col. Rajyavardhan Singh, AVSM, who had represented India in the 2004 Olympics held in Athens as a Rifle Shooter and had become the first Indian in the post independence era to have won a silver medal for the country, is now fighting a legal battle since his dream to win a berth in the Governing Body of National Rifle Association of India’(‘NRAI’ for short), the defendant herein, which selects the teams for international shooting events, has been shattered because he has been defeated by the incumbent President of the Governing Body, who is a businessman, by denying him even the chance to gain entry into the Governing Body.

2. The plaintiff is a life member of NRAI and claims to be keenly involved in its affairs since he himself has been a shooter who had not only won silver medal for the country in the 2004 Olympics but he had in many other international events also. NRAI has a General Body comprising of four representatives from its life members who collectively constitute one of NRAI’s Units called the ‘Wild Life Association of India’ having more than five thousand members and four representatives of annual members, who constitute another Unit called the ‘Shooters Association of India’. As per the Rules & Regulations of NRAI both these Units function as the constituents and under the supervision and control of NRAI. Besides the representatives of these two categories of members of NRAI the General Body also has representatives from Shooting Associations of different States of the country affiliated to NRAI as well as other affiliated Units and the representatives of all these constituents of NRAI constitute the electoral college for the constitution of its the Governing Body which comprises of twenty office bearers and sixteen members.

3. The tenure of the President of the Governing Body of NRAI can extend upto three terms of four years each, with or without any break, while its Secretary General can get elected for two successive terms of four years each.

4. The functions of the Governing Body of NRAI are many but the most important one is to select teams or contingents for international shooting competitions and then come the function of acquiring properties or funds by way of gifts etc. and investing the Association’s funds.

5. Though the plaintiff has been the life member of NRAI for many years but earlier he had no interest in the politics of NRAI but since recently the plaintiff started gathering the impression that its affairs were not being conducted properly by the present office bearers of its Governing Body he decided to make an attempt to get an entry into the Governing Body. To enter the Governing Body of NRAI he undisputedly had first to get elected by the members of the Wild Life Association of India, of which he is a member, as one of its four representatives in the General Body of NRAI.

6. As per the case of the plaintiff, the four year tenure of the present Governing Body, which comprised of mostly businessmen having nothing to do with the sport of shooting, was to expire on 29th March, 2013 and so to constitute a new Governing Body by way of elections from amongst the members of the General Body election date was announced for 6th April, 2013 by the present governing body in its meeting held on 1st February,2013. Since before that election four representatives each from the Wild Life Association of India and Shooters Association of India had also to be elected from amongst NRAI’s Annual Members and Life Members, elections of these two Units of NRAI were also announced in the meeting of 1st February, 2013 and the date of 4th March, 2013 was fixed for the elections.

7. The plaintiff herein attended the meeting on 4th March,2013 in respect of which a retired Judge of this Court had been appointed as an observer by this Court vide order dated 1st March,2013 in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (being O.M.P.No.207 of 2013) which had been fil