Writ petitions against societies registered under Charitable Societies Act are not maintainable; jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to internal governance issues unless specific state control is established.

JUDGMENT

Based on the averments contained in the writ petition, the pivotal question that arises for consideration is whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the Ernakulam District Rifle Association and further that a writ of mandamus could be issued to the District Collector who is an ex officio president of the 3^rd respondent association.

2. Before appreciating the averments in the writ petition, its apposite to extract the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1^st respondent to take note of the illegalities committed and perpetuated as evident from Exhibits P6 to P8 and highlighted in Exhibit P12 and take appropriate action under the Arms and Rules;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1 respondent to take action on the basis of the voluntary disclosure made in Exhibit P14 to the effect that Arms are kept in the residence of the Secretary:

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 4th respondent to take up Exhibit P16 and initiate prompt action thereon as expeditiously as possible;

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 5th respondent to conduct an impartial and unbiased investigation into the various complaints projected in the writ petition as expeditiously as possible.

3. Grievance of the writ petitioner is with regard to the functioning of the 3^rd respondent, Ernakulam District Rifle Association, which is a society registered under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 . The petitioner contends that there are serious irregularities in the functioning of the 3^rd respondent Association. Essentially the grievance is about lack of shortage of pistols for shooting, proper shooting range etc. which the petitioner has voiced under Exhibit P5. The petitioner further submits that under Exhibit P6 he is required to pay the requisite fee, if he wants to purchase pistols through the Association. According to the petitioner, the said condition is in violence to the provisions under Rule 37(3) and (4) of the Arms Rules, 2016 . Since the illegalities were perpetuated by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner seems to have approached the 1^st respondent with a representation to look into the alleged illegalities being committed by the 3^rd respondent. It is further contented that the petitioner’s name has been forged in the memorandum of association (Exhibit P15) and the same is submitted for registration. It is stated further that the arms that are purchased by the Association are now stored at the residence of the secretary of the Association which is again a blatant violation of the Arms Rules. Therefore, essentially the grievance in the writ petition is with regard to certain irregularities in the manner of functioning of the 3^rd respondent Association. Hence, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus requesting the 1^st respondent, District Collector, to look into Ext.P14 representation and further the 4^th respondent be directed to look into Ext.P16 and initiate appropriate action in this regard.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. While considering the writ petition, this Court raised a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the writ petition against the 3^rd respondent, which is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin, Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act 1995. The counsel for the petitioner submits that 1^st respondent being the District collector and who is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court, the writ petition is maintainable. The learned Counsel further submitted that the 3^rd respondent has now been de-recognized by the Sports Counsel of India. If that be so, the 3^rd respondent cannot now hold any arms license, contends the learned counsel. To a specific quer