{"id":224314,"date":"2003-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003"},"modified":"2016-10-30T04:10:18","modified_gmt":"2016-10-29T22:40:18","slug":"r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 05\/12\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR\n\nW.P.No.20425 of 1999\nand W.P.No.8121 of 2003,\nW.A.No.794 of 2002  and  Cont.P.No.368 of 2003\n\nW.P.No.20425 of 1999:\n\nR.Karuppan                                .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Patron of Chennai Rifle Club,\n    Raj Bhavan,\n    Chennai.\n\n2. Kalimuthu,\n    The President of the Chennai Rifle Club,\n    Egmore,\n    Chennai-8.\n\n3. Ramanathan,\n   Deputy Commissioner of Police,\n   Egmore,\n   Chennai-8.\n\n4. Sivanthi Adithyan,\n    Secretary,\n    Chennai Rifle Club,\n    Chennai.\n\n5. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n    rep. by its Chief Secretary,\n    Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.\n\n6. The Sports Development Authority of\n    Tamil Nadu,\n    rep. by its Member Secretary,\n    116-A, Periyar E.V.R.High Road,\n    Nehru Park,\n    Chennai-84.                                .. Respondents\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,\npraying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.R.Karuppan - Petitioner in person\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.  N.R.Chandran, Advocate General,\n                        Amicus Curiae.\n\n                        Mr.P.S.Raman for R-4\n\n                        Mr.K.Muralidharan, Govt.Advocate for\n                        Mr.V.Raghupathi, Government Pleader\n                        for R-5\n                        Mr.R.Srinivas for R-6\n                        No appearance for RR-1 and 2\n\nW.P.No.8121 of 2003:\nR.Kaaruppan                                                              ..\nPetitioner\n                                                vs.\n1.  The National Rifle Association of India,\nrep.  by its Secretary Balijeeth Singh Sethi,\nJawaharlal Nehru Stadium,\nNew Delhi.\n\n2.  B.Sivanthi Adithyan, Senior Vice-President,\nNational Rifle Association of India,\nJawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi.\n\n\n3.  The Sports Authority of India,\nrep.  by its Secretary,\nSasthri Bhavan,\nNew Delhi.                                                      ..\nRespondents\n        Writ  Petition  filed  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, as stated therein.\n\n        For petitioner :  Mr.R.Karuppan - Petitioner in person\n        For respondents :  Mr.P.S.Raman for RR-1 and 2\n\n        Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, SCGSC for R-3\n\n\nW.A.No.794 of 2002 :\nR.Karuppan                                                               ..\nAppellant\n                                        vs.\n1.  The National Rifle Association of India,\nrep.  by its Secretary,\nNehru Stadium,\nNew Delhi.\n\n2.  Sivanthi Adithyan,\nSecretary,\nChennai Rifle Club,\nChennai.                                                                ..\nRespondent\n\n        Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters  Patent  against  the\norder of this Court dated 20-10-2000 in W.P.No.3252 of 2000.\n                        For appellant :  Mr.R.Karuppan, Appellant in person\n                        For respondents :  Mr.P.S.Raman\n\nCont.P.No.368 of 2003 :\nR.Kaaruppan                     .. Petitioner\n\n                vs.\n\n1.  Baljit Singh Sethi,\nSecretary General,\nThe National Rifle Association of India,\nNehru Stadium,\nNew Delhi - 110 003.\n\n2.  Sivanthi Adithyan,\nSecretary,\nChennai Rifle Club,\nRani Building,\nPoonthamallee High Road,\nChennai-600 007.                                                ..\nRespondents\n\n        Contempt  Petition filed under Section 2(c) read with 10 and 12 of the\nContempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents, as stated therein.\n\n                        For petitioner :  Mr.R.Karuppan  Petitioner in person\n                        For respondents:  Mr.P.S.Raman\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
M.  KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        There are two  writ  petitions  and  one  writ  appeal  filed  by  Mr.
\nKaruppan, the petitioner herein as party-in-person.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The prayer in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 is for a Mandamus directing the
\nrespondents  for  vesting the Chennai Rifle Club with the State Government and
\nfor further directions.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The other writ petition is W.P.No.8121 of 2003 wherein the  prayer
\nhas been made for direction to the respondents to conduct a coaching camp well
\nin advance to the maximum duration.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   W.A.No.794  of  2002 would relate to the appeal against the order
\npassed in W.P.No.3252 of 2000 assailing the same on the ground that permission
\nfor withdrawal of the writ petition was given to the petitioner without giving
\nopportunity to file a fresh petition.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Besides  these,  the  petitioner\/party-in-person  filed   another
\npetition  as  a  contempt  petition  in  C.P.No.368 of 2003 requesting to take
\ncontempt  action  against  Sivanthi  Adityan,  the  fourth  respondent  in  W.
\nP.No.20425 of 1999 for having given false particulars in his counter.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  case  of  the petitioner as culled out from the affidavit of
\nW.P.No.20425 of 1999 is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The petitioner was a member of the  Chennai  Rifle  Club.    Sivanthi
\nAdityan,  the  fourth  respondent  is the Honorary Secretary of the said Club.
\nThough the range, machinery and buildings belong to the  Government,  Sivanthi
\nAdityan named   the  said  range  after  him.    This  was  done  without  any
\nauthorisation from the Government in  order  to  siphon  off  money  from  the
\nGovernment.   So,  the  petitioner  gave  a complaint to the Patron of Chennai
\nRifle Club on 27.11.1998.  When permission was denied to  the  petitioner  for
\nparticipating  in the National Tournament by the National Rifle Association of
\nIndia, the petitioner filed  W.P.    No.542  of  1999  stating  that  Sivanthi
\nAdityan,  the fourth respondent did not allow the petitioner and other members
\nto have an access to the ranges and the equipments  belonging  to  Tamil  Nadu
\nState.   On  15.6.199 8, the petitioner received a communication from Sivanthi
\nAdityan, stating that he defaulted in payment of subscription to  the  Chennai
\nRifle Club and asking him to make the payment of Rs.1,000\/- as entry fee along
\nwith the  subscription on or before 30.6.1998.  Though the said amount was not
\npaid, a Demand Draft for Rs.1,500\/- was sent on 14.7.1 998.  On  5.8.1998,  he
\nreceived  a  communication  from Sivanthi Adityan acknowledging the receipt of
\nthe amount and informing him that  the  matter  would  be  placed  before  the
\nCommittee for  decision.    On  6.1.1999,  a  letter  was  received  from  the
\nCommissioner of Police, Ex-officio President of  Chennai  Rifle  Club  stating
\nthat pending consideration of his membership in the range, the petitioner will
\nbe permitted  to take part in the Rifle Club Shooting Range.  Despite that, he
\nwas not allowed to use the range.  The petitioner is not only a member of  the
\nChennai  Rifle  Club,  but  also  has  been  winning laurels to the Club, both
\nNational and International Championship.  The petitioner  has  already  won  a
\nsilver medal  in the International competition.  Since the range has been used
\nby Sivanthi Adityan as if it is his own personal property without distributing
\nthe ammunition to the petitioner as well as to other members, the entire range
\nand machineries shall be vested with the Government.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  In  this  petition,  there  are  five  respondents.    The   first
\nrespondent is the Patron of the Chennai Rifle Club.  According to him, through
\nhis  coutner-affidavit,  the petitioner has been continuously approaching this
\nCourt by misusing the due process of law making several false allegations  and
\nobtaining  the  interim  orders  to participate in several events even without
\nbeing a member of the Club.  The petitioner has  been  already  expelled  from
\nmembership of  the  Club  as per rules.  His name has been struck off from the
\nregister as per Section III, Rule  3(k)  of  the  Rules  of  the  Club.    The
\npetitioner  is not entitled to participate in any event conducted by the first
\nrespondent, since more than  three  years  have  elapsed  since  his  date  of
\nexpulsion.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   According  to  the  respondents 2 and 3, the President of Chennai
\nRifle Club, the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner  of  Police
\nrespectively, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the respondents 1 to 4
\nare not charged with any public duty nor can be considered as a ‘State’ within
\nthe meaning  of Article 12 of the Constitution.  Chennai Rifle Club is neither
\ncontrolled by the State nor governed by any State.    The  land  belonging  to
\nSivanthi  Adityan was offered for the construction of additional range for the
\nuse of Chennai Rifle  Club  and  additional  construction  was  done  only  by
\nSivanthi Adityan.    No  amount  was spent by the Chennai Rifle Club or by the
\nGovernment for the said construction.  He  neither  challenged  the  expulsion
\nfrom  the  Club  nor  asked for re-admission within the period of three years.
\nThe petitioner  has  not  come  with  clean  hands  for  a  bona  fide  cause.
\nTherefore, no relief could be granted to him.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The case of Mr.Sivanthi Adityan, the fourth respondent through his
\ncounter-affidavit is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The  entire  grievance  is one relating to the petitioner’s expulsion
\nfrom the Club for non-payment of subscription.  Without challenging the order,
\nthe petitioner has filed writ petition as  a  Public  Interest  Litigation  by
\nabusing the  process  of  court.   The Chennai Rifle Club is not a State or an
\ninstrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12 of  the  Constitution.
\nTherefore, the  writ petition is not maintainable.  Already, the Supreme Court
\ndecided that no writ will lie against the Club in S.L.P.Nos.1072 and  1072  of
\n2000.  The Range-A was named after the fourth respondent Sivanthi Adityan only
\non the  decision  taken  by the members of the Club.  The petitioner has never
\nrepresented India in any International  competition.    The  allegations  made
\nagainst the fourth respondent and his son are all totally untrue.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The  fifth  respondent,  the  State  of Tamil Nadu has filed the
\ncounter through the Deputy Secretary to Government  on  behalf  of  the  Chief
\nSecretary.  The contents of the same are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        ”  The  respondents  1  to  4  are  not  charged with any public duty.
\nTherefore, no writ  petition  is  maintainable.    The  adjoining  patta  land
\nbelonging to Sivanthi Adityan was offered to Chennai Rifle Club.  The same was
\nhanded over for the construction of the additional range by the own efforts of
\nthe said Sivanthi  Adityan.    The  Government did not spend any money.  Since
\nChennai  Rifle  Club  is  an  autonomous  body,  there  is  no   question   of
\nauthorisation from  the  Government  for  naming  the  range.    So, the State
\nGovernment has no jurisdiction or control over the affairs of the Club.  Thus,
\nWrit of Mandamous cannot be issued.”\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Now, we shall come to W.P.No.8121 of 2003.  The  prayer  in  this
\npetition  is  for  Writ  of Mandamous for direction to the respondents, namely
\nNational Rifle  Association  of  India,  B.Sivanthi  Adityan  and  the  Sports
\nAuthority of India, to conduct the coaching camp well in advance and to direct
\nfor award of Rs.50 lakhs each for the actual and punitive damages, etc.<\/p>\n
        12.  The case of the petitioner in this petition is as follows:
\n        “Earlier,   the   petitioner   filed   a  writ  petition  against  the
\nrespondents.  On the suggestion of compromise mooted by the  counsel  for  the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 and on the assurance that the petitioner would be extended
\nwith  all  facilities  and cooperation to use the range and participate in the
\nevents, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition.    However,  such  promises
\nwere not  kept  up.    The  petitioner  was  not permitted to take part in the
\nMaster’s Cup competition and straightaway he was made to take  participate  in
\nthe selection  competition.   Due to lack of training, he was not able to fare
\nwell.  However, he bettered  his  national  rank  from  9th  position  to  6th
\nposition.  Instead of selecting the petitioner to represent the country at the
\nWorld  Cup,  they  coached  another  person  and  sent  him  who  did not even
\nparticipate in the shooting  championship.    Therefore,  the  petitioner  has
\napproached  this  Court  for  direction  directing  the respondents to conduct
\ncoaching camp well in advance and to conduct selection trials  to  select  the
\nIndian team just on the eve of International Meet.”\n<\/p>\n
        13.   According to the first respondent, National Rifle Association of
\nIndia, New Delhi through its counter, the Apex Court has already held that  as
\nbetween  the  same  parties,  the  writ  petition  is not maintainable and the
\nspecific observation by the Apex Court is that the writ  is  not  maintainable
\nagainst the National Rifle Association of India.  Even when this writ petition
\nwas  admitted,  this  Court  had  taken note of the judgment of Apex Court and
\nmerely admitted for verification whether Sports Authority of India, the  third
\nrespondent has  any  role to play in the prayer.  The fact that the petitioner
\nhas got 9th place in the National Games in  Hyderabad,  is  true.    But,  the
\nshooting  championship  for  the National Games is organised as an inter-state
\nteam event in a different  format  from  that  adopted  by  the  International
\nShooting Sports  Federation.    Therefore,  for  the  purpose of National team
\nselection and other connected purposes, the  ranking  in  the  National  Games
\ncannot be taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The  second respondent Sivanthi Adityan being the Vice President
\nof the first respondent has filed a counter adopting the stand  taken  by  the
\nfirst respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   The third respondent, Sports Authority of India, New Delhi would
\nstate in its counter as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The Sports Authority of India has no role  in  conducting  trials  or
\nmaking selections  for  the  National  teams  or  for the sports persons.  The
\nSports Authority of India has no say or any control over  the  National  Rifle
\nAssociation of India, which is an independent autonomous body.  National Rifle
\nAssociation  of  India  has  to  conduct  national  competitions,  trials  and
\nselection and nominates sports persons  for  coaching  camps  and  the  Sports
\nAuthority  of  India,  the  third  respondent  only  provides  facility to the
\nShooting Range.  As such, no coaching camp is granted by the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  We will now deal with W.A.No.794 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  The appellant filed W.P.No.3252 of 2000 for the issue of Mandamus
\nagainst the respondent  to  conduct  National  Shooting  Championship  without
\ninsisting the membership card of some Rifle Club.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   According  to  the  appellant, the party-in-person, he filed the
\nabove writ petition and the same is pending and during the pendency,  Sivanthi
\nAdityan  asked  him  to  withdraw the same as the matter could be compromised.
\nTherefore, he requested this Court to allow him to withdraw the writ  petition
\nwith a  liberty  to  file  a  fresh  petition.  However, the Writ Court merely
\ndismissed the writ petition without giving such a  liberty,  even  though  the
\npetitioner was  not  present  in the Court on that day.  Challenging the same,
\nthe writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant contenting that  the  writ
\npetition  ought  not  to  have  been  dismissed  without giving liberty to the
\nappellant by filing a fresh petition while withdrawing the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  According to the respondent, the petitioner was  not  present  in
\nthe  Court  when  the  order  was passed and as such, the respondent cannot be
\naccused of having opposed the liberty to file fresh petition and the prayer in
\nthe writ petition also is not maintainable in view of the order of the Supreme
\nCourt in S.L.P.Nos.1072 and 1073 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  We will now take up the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.368 of  20\n<\/p>\n
03.<\/p>\n
        21.   According to the petitioner, the party-in-person, the equipments
\nand Range, both belong to the Tamil Nadu  State  and  without  any  authority,
\nSivanthi  Adityan  installed them in his place and Sivanthi Adityan had stated
\nin his counter in W.P.No.542 of 1999 as if the same was his  private  property
\nand  so,  this  statement is belatedly lie and having said so in W.P.No.542 of
\n1999, he has filed a counter-affidavit in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 stating that he
\nensured  that  sufficient  funds  were  generated  through  well-wishers   for
\nconstruction  of  the shooting ranges and as such, Sivanthi Adityan has misled
\nthe Court  earlier  and  uttered  falsehood  that  the  land  belongs  to  him
\nexclusively and also the Range building belongs to him.  This demonstrates his
\nlack of  honesty  and bona fide.  Further, the promise that was given that the
\npetitioner would be given all concessions,  while  withdrawing  W.A.No.794  of
\n2002 and  W.P.No.20425  of  1999,  was  not kept up.  Hence, this petition for
\ncontempt.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  Sivanthi Adityan, the second respondent in the contempt  petition
\nopposed  the  petition  contending  that  there  is  no  variation between his
\ncounter-affidavits filed in W.P.No.542 of 1999 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999.    It
\nis his consistent case that Range-B belongs to the Government and Range-A land
\nbelongs  to  him  and  the construction was done by him exclusively out of his
\nmoney as well as the money collected from his  well-wishers  and  neither  the
\nbuilding  nor  the  lands  belong to Rifle Club and as such, there is no false
\nstatement.  While W.P.M.P.No.35 34 of  2003  and  W.A.M.P.No.543  of  2003  in
\nW.P.No.20425 of  1999  and W.  A.No.794 of 2003 were taken up for hearing, the
\npetitioner did not conduct himself properly in the  Court  and  the  same  was
\nadversely  commented  upon  by  the Division Bench of this Court consisting of
\nV.S.  Sirpurkar, J and F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J, while  the  final  order  was
\npassed  and  costs  of Rs.2,000\/- was imposed condemning his act, however, the
\nsame was not paid.  On the other hand, the petitioner published one  issue  of
\nnews letter, called FLAWS making scandalous allegations against the conduct of
\nthe  Hon’ble Chief Justice and also against Justice V.S.Sirpurkar and the same
\nwas openly distributed in the corridors of this Court and the  newsletter  was
\npersonally served on the counsel for the respondent by the petitioner himself.
\nAs  such, this conduct of the petitioner would amount to contempt and suitable
\nproceeding has to be initiated against him.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  We have heard the arguments from the party-in-person and from the
\ncounsel for all the  respondents  at  length.    We  have  given  our  anxious
\nconsideration to their respective submissions.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   The  main objection raised by the counsel for the respondents in
\nthe writ petitions is that  the  writ  is  not  maintainable  as  against  the
\nrespondent since the respondent is not an instrumentality or agency of a State
\nunder  Article  12 so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226
\nof the  Constitution  of  India.    On  the  other  hand,  Mr.Kaaruppan,   the
\nparty-in-person would cite number of authorities to establish that the writ is
\nmaintainable.   Similarly,  Mr.P.S.Raman,  the counsel for the respondent also
\nwould cite several authorities to substantiate his contention with  regard  to
\nthe maintainability  of  the  writ  petition.    With  a  view  to  decide the
\nmaintainability question, this Court issued notice to the Advocate General  to
\nelaborate  on  this  point  and  to  give  his opinion in the light of various
\njudgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court with regard to the  point
\nin question.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   In  pursuance  of  the  notice issued by this Court, the learned
\nAdvocate General would appear before this Court and cite number of authorities
\nfor both the propositions.  The judgments cited by  him  for  the  proposition
\nthat the writ is maintainable, are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        (i) ROHTAS INDUSTRIES vs.  ITS UNION (AIR 1976 SC 425) ;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) SHRI ANADI MUKTA SADGURU S.M.V.S.J.M.S.TRUST vs.
\nV.R.RUDANI (AIR<\/a> 1989 SC 1607) ;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) MADRAS LABOUR UNION vs.  BINNY LIMITED<\/a> (1995 (I) C.T.C.  73) ;\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) SOUTH ARCOT DIST.  CENTRAL CO-OP.  BANK LTD.  EMPLOYEES ASSN. vs.
\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (1998 (III) C.T.C.  143) ;\n<\/p>\n
        (v) U.P.  STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.  vs.
\n        CHANDRA BHAN DUBEY<\/a> ( 1999 (I) C.T.C.  467 ) (SC) ;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (vi) THANIKACHALAM.M.  vs.  MADURANTHAKAM AGRICULTURAL
\nRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY (FB)<\/a> ( 2000             (IV)    C.T.C.
\n556 ) ;\n<\/p>\n
        (vii) SEKKILAR vs.  KRISHNAMOORTHY<\/a> ( 1951 (II) M.L.J.  568 ) ;\n<\/p>\n
The above judgments would show that the Mandamous can be issued to any  person
\nor  authority  performing  public  duty  and  the same will lie even against a
\nprivate party under special circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  Similarly,  the  Advocate  General  would  cite  following  three
\ndecisions, where the guidelines have been issued by the Supreme Court that the
\nprivate institute is not a State and therefore, the writ is not maintainable:\n<\/p>\n
        (i) VST INDUSTRIES LTD.  vs.  VST INDUSTRIES WORKERS’ UNION<\/a>
\n        ( 2001 (1) S.C.C.  298 );<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (ii) MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD.  vs.  MYSORE PAPER MILLS OFFICERS
\nASSOCN.<\/a>(AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 609 );\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) G.BASSI REDDY vs.  INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT.
\n        (AIR<\/a> 2003 SUPREME COURT 1764 ).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        27.   Before  dealing with this question in the light of the citations
\nreferred to above, it would be better to refer to the orders  passed  by  this
\nCourt  as  well  as  the  Apex Court relating to the same question between the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  The Apex Court in S.L.P.Nos.1072 and 1073 in which similar  issue
\nhas  been raised between the same parties and decided on 21.1.2000, passed the
\nfollowing order:\n<\/p>\n
        “We do not think that a writ petition  would  lie  against  the  first
\nrespondent  and  there  is nothing in the writ petition which suggests that it
\nwould or even avers that it would.  Secondly, we do not think that it  is  for
\nthis  Court  to  interfere  in  decisions  as to who should or should not be a
\nrepresentative of the country in a sporting event.\n<\/p>\n
        The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
        29.  In the light of the said order, W.P.No.7975 of 2001 filed by  the
\nsame  petitioner  against one of the respondents was dismissed by Shanugam, J.
\non 19.6.2001 stating that writ is not maintainable.  The relevant  observation
\nis as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “In  my view, the above writ petition is not maintainable on more than
\none grounds.  Firstly, the relief sought for is for  a  declaration  that  the
\nrespondents  should not conduct the championship from 9th April to 18th April.
\nThe competition has already been over  and  therefore,  without  quashing  the
\ncompetition and its results, the prayer cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        Secondly,  the counsel taking notice on behalf of the first respondent
\nfurnished before  me  a  copy  of  the  order  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  S.
\nL.P.Nos.1072-1072\/2000  dated  21.01.2000,  wherein  the  petitioner’s Special
\nLeave Petitions were dismissed.  ……  The  judgment  between  the  inter-se
\nparties is  binding  on  the petitioner as well as this Court.  The petitioner
\nhas not made out any case or averred, as set out in the Supreme Court’s  order
\nthat the writ petition will lie against the first respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
        30.   Likewise,  the  Division  Bench of this Court consisting of V.S.
\nSirpurkar, J and F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah,J dismissed W.P.M.P.No.3534 of  2  003
\nand  W.A.M.P.No.543  of  2003  in  W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.A.No.794 of 2002
\nwhich arose out of the same proceeding, and declined to grant interim  relief,
\nby the order dated 4.2.2003 on the same ground in the light of the observation
\nof the  Apex  Court.  The relevant portions of the order of the Division Bench
\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “In response to the  above  said  contentions,  Mr.P.S.Raman,  learned
\ncounsel  appearing for the 4th respondent would contend that since the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court has held that the writ itself was not maintainable, there is  no
\nscope  for  considering  any  of  the  prayers  of  the  petitioner  in  these
\nMiscellaneous Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        We find force in the contentions of the learned counsel.
\nFurther as regards the  petitioner’s  contention  that  there  was  a  similar
\nDivision  Bench  order  in  W.M.P.No.30005  of 1999 in this very Writ Petition
\ndated 28-12-1999 and that the same benefit should be extended this time  also,
\nit  will  have  to  be  held  that  even that cannot also be considered in his
\nfavour, in view of the final orders passed in that very W.M.P.   on  10-2-2000
\nholding  that  when  the petitioner has filed a public interest litigation, he
\ncould not be permitted to have a relief in the W.M.P.  to quench his  personal
\ngrievances.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        31.  Similarly, this Court consisting of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice
\nand  Justice K.Govindarajan, while admitting W.P.No.8121 of 2003 and declining
\nto grant interim relief, would refer to S.L.P.Nos.1072 and 1073 of 2000  dated
\n21.1.2000  and  would hold in the order dated 28.3.2003 that the writ petition
\nis not maintainable against the first respondent, namely  the  National  Rifle
\nAssociation  of India as held by the Supreme Court order and the writ petition
\nagainst the second respondent would not lie as he is a Vice President  of  the
\nNational Rifle  Association of India.  However, the writ petition was admitted
\nby the Division Bench as far as the third respondent is concerned in order  to
\nverify  that  the  third respondent, namely the Sports Authority of India, New
\nDelhi has got any role or control in the  affairs  of  the  first  respondent,
\nnamely the  National  Rifle  Association of India.  It is also observed in the
\nsaid order that unless it is held emphatically that the first respondent,  the
\nNational Rifle Association of India is controlled by the third respondent, the
\nSports  Authority  of  India,  New Delhi, it is not possible for this Court to
\nissue any direction as the  main  issue  can  be  settled  only  in  the  writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
        32.   Therefore,  the  First  Bench as well as the Second Bench, while
\ndealing with the interim  applications  in  W.P.No.8121  of  2003  and  in  W.
\nA.No.794 of 2002 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999 respectively, would hold that in the
\nlight of  the  observation  made by the Apex Court in S.L.P.  Nos.1072-1073 of
\n2000 between the parties concerned, the writ is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  In the light of the above observation of the two Benches of  this
\nCourt, we are asked to consider the question again.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  As correctly pointed out by the Advocate General, it is the ratio
\ndecidendi  observed  by  the  Apex  Court  that  if the rights are purely of a
\nprivate character, no mandamus could be issued and if the management is purely
\na private body with no public duty, mandamus would not lie.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  It is also held by the Supreme Court that the  question  in  each
\ncase  would  be – whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established,
\nthe body is financially, functionally and  administratively  dominated  by  or
\nunder the  control  of the Government.  Such control must be particular to the
\nbody in question and must be pervasive.  If this is found, then the body is  a
\nState within  the  Article  12.  On the other hand, when the control is merely
\nregulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make  the
\nbody a State.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   Further,  in some of the other decisions rendered by the Supreme
\nCourt, it is held that writ would lie even against a  private  party,  but  in
\nsuch cases, the writ is maintainable where the private party was discharging a
\npublic  duty  or  a public function and where the monstrosity of the situation
\nwhich affects the rights of a citizen need to be remedied.\n<\/p>\n
        37.  So, there is no difficulty in holding that the Chennai Rifle Club
\nor the National Rifle Association of India would not  be  construed  to  be  a
\nState within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
        38.   The only point is whether the respondent who is considered to be
\na private party has been discharging a public  duty  or  public  function  and
\nwhether  the  monstrosity  of  the  situation  would  affect  the right of the
\nparty-in-person, the petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n
        39.  According to the respondents, the Chennai  Rifle  Club  does  not
\nperform  any  public  duty  nor  does  it  have  a public duty and there is no
\nmonstrosity in the running of the Club  requiring  interference  in  the  writ
\njurisdiction.  It is the specific case of the respondent Sivanthi Adityan that
\nRange-A  has been put up by him in his personal property without any financial
\nassistance from the State and the same was offered to the Chennai  Rifle  Club
\nfor its  use.   Further, it is stated that there is no other proven misconduct
\nor maladministration requiring the Club to be vested with the State as  prayed
\nfor in W.P.No.20425 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
        40.   Mr.Karuppan,  though  would  elaborately  argue  on the basis of
\nseveral decisions, would not be able to give any material  to  show  that  the
\nChennai  Rifle Club has been performing any public function or it has a public
\nduty.  Further, no material was placed to show that  there  is  misconduct  or
\nmaladministration  in  the Club requiring the Club to be acquired by the State
\nnor there is monstrosity of the situation which would affect the right of  the
\npetitioner.   Similarly,  there  is  nothing to indicate that this is a Public
\nInterest Litigation, especially when the party-in-person has obtained personal
\nbenefits through the  interim  orders  and  subsequently,  when  he  chose  to
\nwithdraw  the  writ petitions on the assurance given by the respondent that he
\nwould be given  concessions  and  further,  on  feeling  aggrieved  that  full
\nconcessions have not been given to him by the respondent, he thought it fit to
\napproach  the First Bench to restore the writ petitions and writ appeal though
\nthey were earlier withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
        41.  As stated earlier, while the interim applications were dealt with
\nby the First Bench as well as the Second Bench in these writ petitions, namely
\nW.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121 of 2003 and W.A.No.7  94  of  2002,  they
\nhave followed the observation made by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.1072-1073
\nof 2000  dated  21.1.2000.  Under those circumstances, we are unable to take a
\ndifferent view from that of the First Bench and the Second  Bench,  that  too,
\nwhen  the  said  finding  was  given on the basis of the Apex Court’s decision
\nwhich is binding on this Court also.\n<\/p>\n
        42.  The wording contained in S.L.P.Nos.1072-1073 of 2000 would not be
\nsaid that the ratio has not been decided.  On the other hand, in  the  absence
\nof any material to show that Chennai Rifle Club would come under the State, we
\ncannot hold  otherwise.  Therefore, we are constrained to hold that these writ
\npetitions are not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
        43.   Even  in  spite  of  our  above  view  that  the  writ  is   not
\nmaintainable,  we  thought of suggesting to the Chennai Rifle Club to consider
\nhis re-admission as it is claimed by Mr.Karuppan that he won several medals in
\nthe National Shooting Championship from 1992 to 2002 and as such, he  must  be
\ngiven  opportunity  to  go and participate in the National level as well as in
\nthe International level so  that  he  would  get  a  name  for  India  in  the
\nInternational level.    Therefore, we directed the counsel for the respondents
\nMr.P.S.Raman to collect the particulars about the performance  record  of  the
\npetitioner  Mr.Karuppan  in the National and State Level Championship from the
\nbeginning till date.  Accordingly, the counsel for the  respondents  collected
\nthe datas and filed a memo giving the details which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “National  Shooting  Championship  conducted  by  the  National  Rifle
\nAssociation of India:\n<\/p>\n
S.No.  Year Event Score Rank
\n1 37th NSCC Oct,1994 Trap 87 20\/28
\n2 38th NSCC 1995 Trap 75 17\/24
\n3 39th NSCC Feb,1996 Trap 87 15\/28
\n4 40th NSCC Jan,1997 Trap 89 13\/30 (Team won
\nBronze medal)
\n        40th NSCC Jan,1997      Skeet 15 15\/21<\/p>\n
5 41th NSCC 1998 Trap 71 20\/27
\n6 42th NSCC 1999 Trap 97 8\/18
\n        42th NSCC 1999 Double Trap 72 16 \/26
\n        42th NSCC 1999 Skeet 68 No rank<\/p>\n
7 46th NSCC Dec,2002 Trap 84 20\/22
\n        46th NSCC Dec,2002 Double Trap 86 23 \/27<\/p>\n
        STATE LEVEL CHAMPIONSHIP CONDUCTED BY
\n                        THE CHENNAI RIFLE CLUB<\/p>\n
S.No.  Year Event Score Rank
\n1 26th TNSCC Oct,2000 Trap 28\/50 4\/17
\n26th TNSCC Oct,2000 Double Trap 26\/50 4\/15
\n        26th TNSCC Oct,2000 Skeet 19\/50 6\/17<\/p>\n
2 28th TNSCC Jan,2002 Trap 30\/50 4\/12
\n28th TNSCC Jan,2002 Double Trap 23\/50 6\/14
\n        28th TNSCC Jan,2002 Skeet 21\/50 7\/18<\/p>\n
3 29th TNSCC Oct,2002 Trap 29\/50 6\/18
\n29th TNSCC Oct,2002 Double Trap 35\/50 3\/16 (Bronze)
\n        29th TNSCC Oct,2002 Skeet 24\/50 7\/19
\nNo State level championships were held between 1993 to 1998.
\nIn the last tournament (24th TNSCC) Mr.Karuppan won  gold  medal  in  Trap  in
\n1992.”\n<\/p>\n
        44.  These details would make it clear that Mr.Karuppan won gold medal
\nin Trap  in  1992  and Bronze medal in the year 2002 in Double Trap.  In other
\nevents, he has received some ranks, but did not enter into the Topper’s  list.
\nBut,  these  details would certainly show that he has got sufficient talent in
\nshooting.  The data given in the memo would reveal that he  participated  both
\nprior to the filing of the writ petition and also participated in the Shooting
\nChampionship  in  pursuance  of  the  interim reliefs granted by this Court in
\nvarious writ petitions and obtained some ranks and medals.\n<\/p>\n
        45.  As a matter  of  fact,  the  First  Bench  of  this  Court  while
\ndeclining  to grant the interim relief in W.P.No.8121 of 2003 on 28.3.2003 and
\nexpressing the doubt about the maintainability of  the  writ  petition,  would
\ncomplement  Mr.Karuppan  by  observing that there is no doubt in the talent of
\nMr.Karuppan in shooting.\n<\/p>\n
        46.  On this basis, we felt that  it  would  be  appropriate  to  give
\nsuitable  suggestion  to  the  Chennai  Rifle  Club  to  give  opportunity  by
\nreadmitting him as a member and also encourage him so  as  to  enable  him  to
\nparticipate  in  the  National  level  as  well as in the International level.
\nHowever, this aspect would be considered later.\n<\/p>\n
        47.  In Contempt Petition No.368 of 2003, the main point that has been
\ntaken by the party-in-person, the petitioner herein  is  that  the  respondent
\nSivanthi  Adityan  has  misled  the  Court  by  making  a  misstatement in the
\ncounter-affidavits filed in W.P.Nos.542 of 1999 and 20425 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
        48.  On going through the counter-affidavits referred to above, it  is
\nclear that the respondent’s stand regarding the personal ownership of the land
\nand the  building  in  the  Range-A  is  consistent.  It is also seen from the
\ncounter-affidavits filed by the other  respondents  including  the  Government
\nthat  the land in the Range-A is the personal property of Sivanthi Adityan and
\nthe same had been given voluntarily for the exclusive use of the Chennai Rifle
\nClub.\n<\/p>\n
        49.  According to the respondent Sivanthi Adityan, he never  made  any
\nmisstatement  and  this  contempt  petition  has been filed making unwarranted
\nallegations in order to harass him,even though he is an upstanding son of this
\nState and former Sheriff of Madras.\n<\/p>\n
        50.  Though it is stated in the contempt petition  by  the  petitioner
\nthat  earlier  promises  given  by  the  respondent  to  the  petitioner while
\nwithdrawing W.A.No.794 of 2002 and W.P.No.20425 of 1999 were not kept  up  and
\nas  such,  contempt  has been committed, this submission would not deserve any
\nconsideration for the reason that ultimately, this Court on the request of the
\npetitioner  set  aside  the  order  permitting  withdrawal  and  ordered   for
\nrestoration of W.A.No.794  of  2002  and  W.P.   No.20425 of 1999.  Therefore,
\nthose things cannot be complained in the present contempt petition.\n<\/p>\n
        51.  The main attack made by the counsel for  the  respondent  in  the
\ncontempt  petition  is that the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed in
\nlimine as the written consent of the Advocate General which is  mandatory  has
\nnot been  obtained.  The need for consent of the Advocate General is to ensure
\nthat vexatious or vindictive petitions  are  not  presented  out  of  personal
\nvendetta  as  the  Advocate General would act as a filter against abuse of the
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
        52.  Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the
\npetitioner himself is guilty of criminal contempt since he has  published  and
\ncirculated  a  pamphlet  called  FLAWS soon after the orders pronounced by the
\nFirst Bench and the Second Bench in which publication  of  several  references
\nare  made  criticising  the  Chief  Justice as well as the Judges of the other
\nDivision Benches and those references are in gross contempt of court for which
\nsuo motu action should be initiated by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        53.  In regard to the first argument relating to the  consent  of  the
\nAdvocate General, we do not propose to give any importance to the same as this
\nCourt  would  be  very well called upon to decide the contempt issue, since we
\nhave taken cognizance  of  the  alleged  contemptuous  act  committed  by  the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
        54.   As  stated earlier, we do not find any material to show that the
\nrespondent Mr.Sivanthi Adityan has made any misstatement before this Court  so
\nas to  mislead this Court to pass any order in his favour.  On the other hand,
\nit has to be stated that his stand is consistent.\n<\/p>\n
        55.  But, the shocking feature is that the  respondent  would  require
\nthis Court to take cognizance of the contempt committed by the petitioner, who
\nfiled  contempt  petition,  for  having  circulated  a  pamphlet  called FLAWS
\ncriticising the First Bench as well as the Second Bench with regard  to  their
\nfunctioning, while passing judicial orders in his petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        56.   The  counsel  for the respondent would also produce in the typed
\nset the copy of the FLAWS, a news letter, printed, published and circulated by
\nKaruppan, the party-in-person.  As a matter of fact, it is the  contention  of
\nthe   counsel   that  the  pamphlet  was  served  personally  on  the  counsel
\nMr.P.S.Raman by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        57.  Originally, we thought of  ignoring  this.    Since  Mr.P.S.Raman
\npointed  out  the  portions  published  in  the  Flaws, circulated by Karuppan
\ncriticising the Hon’ble Chief Justice and  other  Judges  of  this  Court,  we
\ndecided to  initiate  proceedings against Karuppan.  Mr.P.S.Raman, the counsel
\nwould also point out that in the very same Flaws, Karuppan has criticised  him
\nby making   averments   wounding   his   feelings.    Therefore,  we  directed
\nMr.P.S.Raman to file his affidavit.  Accordingly,  he  filed  the  same.    In
\npursuance of the said affidavit, we thought it fit to issue suo moto notice to
\nKaruppan.  Since we decided to initiate suo motu proceedings against Karuppan,
\nwe had an enquiry in the chamber as in-camera proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        58.  On going through the wordings in the Flaws, it is clear that they
\nwould  certainly  be  construed to be contumacious, since there is a sarcastic
\ncriticism against the Judges of this Court including the Hon’ble Chief Justice
\nof this Court.  At the time  of  issuing  notice,  we  have  suitably  advised
\nKaruppan  by  asking him to realise his mistake in printing and publishing the
\nremarks against the Judges of this Court in which he is  practising  and  then
\nfile an affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
        59.   We  have  sufficiently  indicated  our  mind  that Karuppan, the
\npetitioner herein should not have resorted to such activities.    However,  we
\nwanted to give opportunity to him to realise his mistake and asked him to file
\na  suitable  affidavit  so  as  to  enable  this Court to drop the proceedings
\nagainst him.  Then, the matter was adjourned by giving sufficient time.    But
\nto  our shock, the affidavit has been filed by the petitioner giving statement
\njustifying his act and stated that it would not amount to contempt and even if
\nit is a contempt, that must be heard only by the First Bench and not  by  this
\nBench.\n<\/p>\n
        60.   Though in the first paragraph, Karuppan would state that “at the
\noutset I profoundly apologize for my conduct having offended the sentiments of
\nthe Hon’ble Court though prima facie”, he went on saying that “I went  through
\nthe publication  and  found  that  nothing  was  contumacious.    The  idea of
\npublishing the same is not with any ulterior motive except for making known to
\nthe multitude of curious advocates.” In the continuing portions covering about
\n10 paragraphs, he went on justifying his act in  making  the  others  to  know
\nabout the  proceedings  held  in the court.  Thus, it is clear that he has not
\nrealised the blunder mistake committed by him.  On the other  hand,  he  would
\nventure to justify the same.\n<\/p>\n
        61.   Yet  another shocking feature is that when the petitioner argued
\nthe matter before the Second Bench consisting of Justice V.S.   Sirpurkar  and
\nJustice  F.M.Ibrahim  Kalifullah, he criticised the order of the Supreme Court
\nin S.L.P.Nos.1072-1073 of 2000 and the above Division Bench condemned the said
\nact of Karuppan,  the  petitioner,  and  consequently,  while  dismissing  the
\nmiscellaneous  applications,  imposed  costs  of Rs.2,000\/- by the order dated
\n4.2.2003.  To set aside the said order, another application has been filed  by
\nhim  before  the  same  Division Bench and the same was dismissed on 10.2.2003
\nholding that the petitioner has filed the said petition  which  has  vexatious
\nnature.   Challenging the said order, Mr.Karuppan filed S.L.P.Nos.4501-4502 of
\n2003 before the Apex Court and the same were dismissed on 6.3.2003.   In  that
\norder, the following direction was given:\n<\/p>\n
        “We, therefore,  see  no  ground  to entertain the S.L.P.  However, we
\nwould like to observe that the High Court  may  dispose  of  the  writ  appeal
\nexpeditiously along with the connected matter, if any.”
\nBy  this,  the  order  of  the  Second Bench has been confirmed by the Supreme
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
        62.  After pronouncement of the above order, Mr.Karuppan requested the
\nSupreme Court pleading for deletion of the direction to pay exemplary costs of
\nRs.2,000\/- as he never meant to pass  any  disparaging  comments  against  any
\ncourt.  But, the Supreme Court declined for deletion and observed in the order
\nthat  it  is  open  to the petitioner to file appropriate petition in the High
\nCourt seeking deletion of the said direction, if he so chooses.\n<\/p>\n
        63.  This order was passed on 6.3.2003.  When Mr.Karuppan was asked by
\nthis Court whether he had either filed an  application  before  the  concerned
\nBench for deletion of direction to pay costs or made payment of costs, he said
\nthat he  neither  paid  costs  nor  filed any such application.  The costs was
\nordered to be paid by the Second Bench  of  this  Court  by  the  order  dated
\n4.2.2003.  The  same  was  confirmed by the Apex Court on 6.3.2003.  But, till
\ndate, there is no move on the  part  of  the  petitioner  either  to  file  an
\napplication for deletion of the direction to pay costs in the same Bench or to
\nmake payment  of  costs.   Thus, it is clear that he is not inclined to comply
\nwith either of the directions given by this  Court  as  well  as  the  Supreme
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
        64.   In  this context, we have to see the nature of the act committed
\nby the petitioner in having printed and distributed  the  pamphlet  containing
\ncriticism of Judges.\n<\/p>\n
        65.   As  stated earlier, as we directed Mr.P.S.Raman who is appearing
\nfor Mr.Sivanthi Aditan, the second respondent in  the  contempt  petition,  he
\nfiled  an  affidavit  on  4.9.2003 for the limited purpose of stating that the
\naverment the petitioner Karuppan  published  one  news  letter  named  “Flaws”
\nVolume IX  Edition  2003  is true to his personal knowledge.  The following is
\nthe relevant paragraphs:\n<\/p>\n
        “I respectfully state that a printed copy of the said publication  was
\nbeing distributed by Thiru R.Kaaruppan openly in the Madras High Court and one
\nsuch copy  was  personally  handed  over  to  me by Thiru R.  Kaaruppan in the
\ncorridor of the High Court  outside  the  court  hall  of  Hon’ble  The  Chief
\nJustice.   This  happened a few weeks after the judgment of the Division Bench
\nof this Hon’ble Court dated 04.02.2003  in  W.    P.M.P.No.3534  of  2003  and
\nW.A.M.P.No.543 of  2003  in  W.P.No.20425 of 19 99 and W.A.No.794 of 2002.  My
\noffice colleague Thiru C.Seethapathy, Advocate  was  also  personally  present
\nwhen this incident had happened.\n<\/p>\n
        I further respectfully submit that the aforesaid publication contained
\nseveral  references  to  me  personally  and also critical of the manner of my
\nconducting the various cases which he has filed several  of  which  criticisms
\nwere  aimed at demeaning my character and professional integrity as well as my
\ncompetence.”\n<\/p>\n
        66.  While filing this affidavit, Mr.P.S.Raman, the counsel  requested
\nthis  Court  to  go through the said publication of news letter called “Flaws”
\nand also to take note of the context in which the said publication of pamphlet
\nwas made criticising the Judges including the Chief Justice and himself.    As
\nmentioned  in  his  affidavit, this distribution of pamphlet by Mr.Karuppan in
\nthe corridor of the High Court outside the court hall  of  Hon’ble  The  Chief
\nJustice  happened  a  few  weeks  after  the  judgment  of  the Division Bench
\nconsisting of Justice V.S.   Sirpurkar  and  Justice  F.M.Ibrahim  Kalifullah,
\ndated 4.2.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        67.   Before  going  into  the  publication, namely FLAWS, it would be
\nbetter to refer to the observation made by the Division Bench  of  this  Court
\nabout  the  conduct  of  the petitioner Karuppan in the order dated 4 .2.2003.
\nThe relevant observation is this:\n<\/p>\n
        “Though Mr.R.Karuppan mentioned in para 12 of his Affidavit  filed  in
\nsupport  of W.P.No.3253 of 2000 as against which the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.794
\nof 2002 has been filed by stating that dismissal of the S.    L.P.    and  the
\nobservations  made  therein  are  against the Constitution provisions and void
\nabinitio, while taking strong exception to usage of such expressions,  we  are
\nof the firm view that there is no warrant for him to charecterise the order as
\nsuch  and in any event, the said order squarely covers the present proceedings
\nin all fours.  Not satisfied  with  such  unwarranted  comments  made  in  the
\nAffidavit  sworn to by him on 18-2-2000, he also attempted to reiterate such a
\nstand before us.  Taking strong exception to that he was directed not to  make
\nany such attempt  before  us.    ……    we  are of the view for having made
\nirresponsible and unwarranted comments about the order of the Hon’ble  Supreme
\nCourt  dated  21-1-2000  in  S.L.P.(Civil)  Nos.1072  to  1073  of  2000 , the
\npetitioner has exposed himself for taking appropriate action against him.  But
\nsince we have decided to dismiss the petitioner’s miscellaneous petitions,  we
\nrefrain  from  taking  any  such  action except to award exemplary costs while
\ndismissing these miscellaneous petitions.  …….  In the result, the present
\nmiscellaneous petitions ….  are dismissed both on the ground that  they  are
\nnot maintainable as well as devoid of merits with costs of Rs.2000.”
\nThus,  it  is clear that his conduct criticising the Supreme Court’s order was
\nalready condemned by the Second Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        68.  The above order dated 4.2.2003 was sought  to  be  set  aside  by
\nfiling  another  application  in W.A.M.P.No.715 of 2003 in W.A.No.794 of 20 02
\nbefore the very same Bench stating that one of  the  Presiding  Judge  of  the
\nBench had  given an impression that he was partial towards other party.  While
\ndealing with the said ground, the Second Bench would hold as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “In this petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside  our  above  said
\norder  dated  4.2.2003  and  also direct listing of the case before some other
\nBench.  while seeking for the above prayer, the petitioner would contend  that
\nthough  he  argued  the  above  said  applications  before  us, he had its own
\nreservations about one of the Presiding Judge of the  Bench  as  according  to
\nhim, he  gained  an  impression that “justice may not be seemingly done.  ….
\nAt the outset, we brand this petition as a vexatious one, inasmuch as, we  are
\nof  the firm view that though by couching the prayer in an innocuous manner in
\nthis miscellaneous petition, the petitioner really wants to review  our  order
\ndated  4.2.200  3  without  preferring  appropriate  petition for that purpose<\/p>\n
complying with the requirement of law in regard to  the  filing  of  a  review
\napplication.  ….    As  regards his contention regarding “justice having not
\nbeen done seemingly”, the whole affair is unfortunate.”\n<\/p>\n
        69.  Giving the details as to how several opportunities were given  to
\nargue  the  matter  on  the  earlier  occasions,  the  Second  Division  Bench
\nultimately dismissed the application.  Only thereafter, the  petitioner  filed
\nS.L.P.Nos.4501  and  4502  of  2003 before the Supreme Court and the same also
\nwere dismissed on 6.3.2003 declining to entertain his claim and also  refusing
\nto  delete  the  direction  in  regard  to  the  payment of exemplary costs of
\nRs.2,000\/-.  As already indicated, till now the payment has not been made  nor
\nany  application  has  been  filed  before the Court concerned for deletion by
\nutilising the opportunity given by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
        70.  On the other hand, the petitioner filed another writ petition  in
\nW.P.No.8121 of  2003 seeking interim orders before the First Bench.  The First
\nBench headed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, while  holding  that  the  writ
\npetition  is not maintainable in view of the Apex Court order dated 21.1.2003,
\nwould admit the petition for a  limited  purpose  to  verify  that  the  third
\nrespondent,  namely  the  Sports  Authority  of  India has got any role in the
\naffairs of the first respondent, namely National Rifle Association  of  India.
\nHowever,  the  interim relief sought for in the miscellaneous applications was
\nrefused to be granted.\n<\/p>\n
        71.  Thus, Mr.Karuppan was not successful before the  First  Bench  as
\nwell as  before  the Second Bench in getting any orders in his favour.  On the
\nother hand, he invited the orders from both the Benches giving  finding  about
\nmisconduct and  also the maintainability of the writ petition.  This must have
\nirked Mr.Karuppan.  In that context, the publication, namely FLAWS came to  be
\nmade.  The  FLAWS  copy in Tamil has been given in the typed set.  The English
\ntranslation also has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
        72.  Let us quote some of the recitals contained  in  the  said  Flaws
\ncriticising both  our  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice and Justice V.S.  Sirpurkar who
\nheaded the Second Bench:\n<\/p>\n
        “A writ appeal was filed opposing this (Justice  Jagadeesan’s  order).
\nThe Chief Justice took it up for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
        Karuppan sought that two petitions seeking to allow him to participate
\nin  the  competition  that  is  held before the Indian team is selected and to
\npermit him to practice at the Chennai Rifle Club be taken up for hearing.  The
\nChief Justice could have taken it up for hearing and granted an interim order.
\nBut it is not clear why he  posted  them  before  Justice  Sirpurkar.    …..
\nHowever, he  filed  the  counter  only on behalf of Sivanthi Adithan.  In that
\ncounter too all the charges made by Karuppan  were  not  denied.    The  usual
\npractice is that in cases relating to competitions and examination the verdict
\nwould be  delivered immediately.  That is how judgments were given since 1994.
\nHowever, Justice Sirpurkar casually heard the case  and  without  passing  any
\norders posted  it  for  further  hearing  the next day.  The next day the part
\nheard case was listed last on his call list.\n<\/p>\n
        Karuppan who waited till afternoon  lost  his  patience  and  wrote  a
\nletter  to  the  Chief  Justice  asking him to transfer the case to some other
\njudge, as he did not have confidence in Justice Sirpurkar.    ….    But  the
\nChief  Justice  sent  the note to Justice Sirpurkar asking him to expedite the
\nhearing in the petitions.  Since the petitioner was an  advocate  and  doubted
\nthe  judgmental capacity of the judge, though the suspicion could be baseless,
\nJustice Sirpurkar should have transferred the case to some other judge.  ….\n<\/p>\n
        However, it  was  proved  that  Justice  Sirpurkar  was  biased  while
\nattempting  to  cover  up  the  matter  relating  to the selection of Sivanthi
\nAdithan’s son.  ….  After thinking the  whole  night,  Karuppan  came  to  a
\ndecision.   He remembered that Justice Sirpurkar had not delivered the verdict
\nin a cheating case against Sivanthi Adithan in 1999 though it was proved  that
\nthe latter  was  guilty.    The  same  judge  was now saying that the advocate
\nappearing for Sivanthi Adithan need not argue about  Sivanthi  Adithan’s  son.
\nTherefore,  he  (Karuppan)  should  not  argue his case further before Justice<\/p>\n
Sirpurkar.  …  Justice Sirpurkar’s present judgment was contraditory to  his
\nverdict in  1998.    Since he had not accepted the verdicts delivered by three
\nbenches, he should refer it to a larger bench.”\n<\/p>\n
        73.  So, these portions would indicate that Mr.Karuppan  in  the  news
\nletter called FLAWS has criticised the act of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in
\nhaving  declined  to  grant  interim  order in the two petitions in the appeal
\nfiled against Justice Jagadeesan’s order and the conduct of the Chief  Justice
\nin posting  them  before  Justice  Sirpurkar.    Further,  almost  in  all the
\nparagraphs in the news letter, he criticised Justice Sirpurkar stating that he
\nis biased and he doubted the judgmental capacity of Justice Sirpurkar and also
\nhe did not have any confidence in Justice Sirpurkar.  He would also go to  the
\nextent  of  saying that Justice Sirpurkar in the year 1999 had given a verdict
\nin a cheating case in favour of Sivanthi Adithan, though it  was  proved  that
\nthe latter was guilty.\n<\/p>\n
        74.   As a matter of fact, a perusal of the other orders passed by the
\nHon’ble The Chief Justice and the  Second  Bench  would  reveal  that  several
\ninterim  reliefs  were  given  by  them  earlier  in  favour of the petitioner
\nKaruppan.  On one occasion, though the writ appeal and other application  have
\nbeen  withdrawn on the assurance given by the respondent for giving concession
\nto participate in the National Tournaments and after enjoying the  concession,
\nthe petitioner requested the First Bench to set aside the order permitting him
\nfor withdrawal and to restore the main petition.        In  fact,  only at the
\nintervention of the Hon’ble chief Justice, the respondents  have  conceded  to
\ngive  all  concessions  and  on  that  basis,  the  petition was allowed to be
\nwithdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
        75.  There is no dispute in the fact that in pursuance of the  interim
\norders,  the petitioner was allowed to participate in some of the tournaments.
\nEven though the concessions given by the  respondents  on  the  basis  of  the
\ncompromise  entered  between the parties, at the benign suggestion made by the
\nHon’ble Chief Justice have been enjoyed, the Hon’ble Chief Justice without any
\nhesitation allowed the request by restoring the original  petition  mainly  on
\nthe  ground  that  the  petitioner should not have the feeling that he was not
\nheard fully for the main relief.        Similarly, the Second Bench headed  by
\nJustice  Sirpurkar  also earlier granted similar reliefs to the petitioner for
\nparticipating in the National Tournaments.\n<\/p>\n
        76.  Despite, this, Mr.Karuppan merely because subsequent applications
\nwere not allowed by the First Bench and the Second  Bench,  made  a  criticism
\nagainst the Hon’be Chief Justice heading the First Bench and Justice Sirpurkar
\nheading the Second Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        77.   Furthermore,  he  has also made a scathing criticism against the
\ncounsel Mr.P.S.Raman, which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Bharat (counsel), who is  the  son  of  late  V.P.Raman,  enjoys  the
\ndubious  distinction of being the only lawyer in the High Court who would make
\nrepresentations contrary to truth and law without having  regard  for  judges.
\nSince  he  does  not  know  law, he has no inhibitions in uttering whatever he
\nwants.”\n<\/p>\n
This statement also, in our view, is unfortunate as he is emboldened  to  make
\nany  unparliamentary  remarks  as  against  the  Judges as well as against the
\ncounsel appearing for the other side.\n<\/p>\n
        78.  When this Court went through the earlier orders passed in  favour
\nof  the  petitioner,  it  is  noticed  that both the Hon’ble Chief Justice and
\nJustice Sirpurkar gave the  interim  reliefs,  despite  the  strong  objection
\nraised by the counsel for the respondents, in order to give opportunity to the
\npetitioner  who  happens  to be an advocate to show his talent in the National
\nTournaments.  It is also to be taken note of that Mr.Karuppan is  not  only  a
\npractising  advocate,  but  also  was  holding  a  very  high  position as the
\nPresident of the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association  which  consists  of<\/p>\n
several thousands  of  bar members.  Without realising the responsibility, the
\npetitioner thus had indulged in making disparaging remarks about  the  conduct
\nof the Judges and the lawyers.\n<\/p>\n
        79.    When  this  Court  issued  suo  motu  proceedings  against  the
\npetitioner with reference to the publication of FLAWS, as  indicated  earlier,
\nthis  Court  advised  Mr.Karuppan to realise his mistake and file an affidavit
\nsuitably, so that this Court would consider the above act  of  the  petitioner
\nwith a lenient veiw.\n<\/p>\n
        80.  Despite the indication given by this Court, Mr.Karuppan filed the
\naffidavit  dated  7.11.2003 justifying his action of distributing the pamphlet
\ncriticising the Judges and the  lawyers.    The  relevant  statements  in  the
\naffidavit are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “I   went   through   the  publication  and  found  that  nothing  was
\ncontumacious.  The idea of publishing the same is not with any ulterior motive
\nexcept for making known to the multitude of curious  advocates.    ….    lst
\nrespondent and his counsel have overlooked that the alleged act of contempt is
\nnot on  the  face of this Court.  So they can only file a contempt application
\nbefore the first C ourt, for the Chief Justice’s Court alone  is  vested  with
\nthe portfolio  of  exercising  contempt jurisdiction.  …If the respondent is
\naggrieved personally and if his counsel is also aggrieved, the only course  is
\nthat  each  one  of  them should have filed separate contempt applications for
\naction against me the applicant.  ….  I had been publishing  a  news  letter
\ncalled Flaws  for the past one and half decades are so.  It invariably brought
\nout the happenings in the Court.  It’s sole objective  was  to  enlighten  the
\nadvocates fraternity  about  the  happenings in and around the Campus.  ……
\nAbove all the issue involved is matter of public interest and  pertains  to  a
\npro-bono action.  ….  Besides many who followed the case were of the opinion
\nthat  the  matter  should  be  reported  to the Chief Justice of India and his
\ncompanion Judges as well to the President of India.  They felt that the matter
\nshould be published on their behalf.    I  accordingly  expressed  the  entire
\nhappenings  from  the  day  one  to  till the last orders of the Chief Justice
\nincluding the happenings at  the  Supreme  Court.    …..    Faithful  honest
\nexpositions  of  the happenings in the Court of law are public proceedings can
\nbe published and as well pleaded before any  superior  court  is  the  settled
\nlegal position  which  is  every body’s knowledge.  That cannot give rise to a
\ncriminal contempt.  …..    lst  respondent  has  stated  that  I  have  made
\nscandalous allegations  against  the Chief Justice and his companion Judge.  I
\nam afraid that there is nothing scandalous to be found.   ….    Needless  to
\nstate  that  this  is not the forum even if the allegations were true and that
\nthe same should have been moved before the Hon’ble Chief Justice.”\n<\/p>\n
        81.  Even when the matter was taken  up  in  the  chamber  during  the
\nincamera  enquiry,  Mr.Karuppan,  the party-in-person would reiterate that the
\nstatement made in  the  publication  is  not  contumacious  and  the  idea  of
\npublishing the same is only for making known to the multitude of advocates and
\nthe bona fide reporting of the experiences of the advocate inside the court to
\nthe  members  of the fraternity, that too as a leader of the Bar, can never be
\ntermed as a contempt and even assuming that the same is contempt,  that  could
\nbe  questioned  only  by  a  separate proceeding and that too before the First
\nBench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and not before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        82.  This contention apparently, in our view, is untenable in view  of
\nthe  suo motu power which has been conferred to this Court under Section 15 of
\nthe Act.  Further, all these matters were originally posted before  the  First
\nBench  and on the basis of the administrative orders, it was posted before the
\nSecond Bench and later, on the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the  matter
\nhas been  posted  before  this Court.  Therefore, we are of the view that this
\nCourt is within its  power  to  initiate  suo  motu  proceedings  against  the
\nparty-in-person who has admittedly printed and published by serving the copies
\nof  the news letter to the advocates including the counsel for the respondent,
\nthat to, near the court hall of the Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
        83.  The submission that the enquiry can  be  conducted  only  by  the
\nconcerned Judge with reference to the contempt lacks substance as the contempt
\nof  court  jurisdiction  is  not  to protect an individual Judge, but it is to
\nprotect the administration of justice from being maligned.\n<\/p>\n
        84.  The offence of criminal contempt is divided into two  categories.
\nOne  is publication of any matter which scandalises or tends to scandalise the
\nauthority of any court etc.  etc.  Second is the doing of any act  whatsoever,
\nwhich scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any court.\n<\/p>\n
        85.  The  present  case would fall under the first category.  There is
\nno dispute that the publication and distribution of news letter  was  made  by
\nMr.Karuppan in the High Court Campus by serving the same to the advocates.  As
\nwe  have  indicated that the contents of the publication would scandalise both
\nthe First Bench and the Second Bench.  The petitioner cannot escape by  saying
\nthat it is only a bona fide report.\n<\/p>\n
        86.    The   expression  “bona  fide”  or  “good  faith”  in  criminal
\njurisprudence has a definite connotation.  Its  import  is  totally  different
\nfrom  saying that the person concerned has honestly believed the truth of what
\nis said.  Before a person proposes to make an imputation on another the author
\nmust first make an enquiry into the factum of the imputation which he proposes
\nto make.  If he does not do so, he cannot claim that what he did was bona fide
\ni.e.  done in good faith.\n<\/p>\n
        87.  Section 2  (c)  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  contains  the
\ndefinition of “criminal contempt” which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “2(c)  ‘Criminal  contempt’  means  the publication (whether by words,
\nspoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations,  or  otherwise)
\nof any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which–\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  scandalises  or  tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower
\nthe authority of any court; or\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to  interfere  with,  the  due
\ncourse of any judicial proceeding; or\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)  interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
\nobstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”
\nThe gist of the section is that if any person makes a  publication  containing
\nthe statement which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers the authority
\nof any court, it would amount to contempt.\n<\/p>\n
        88.   If the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to
\ninterfere with the due course of justice or proper administration  of  law  by
\nsuch court,  it can be punished summarily as contempt.  One is a wrong done to
\nthe Judge personally and the other is a wrong done to the public.  It would be
\nan injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds  of
\nthe public  regarding  the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge.  It is
\nwell established that it is not necessary to prove  affirmatively  that  there
\nhas  been  an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason
\nof such defamatory statement.  It is enough if it is likely to interfere  with
\nthe proper administration of law.\n<\/p>\n
        89.  The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any
\nact  by  a  person  which  would  tend to interfere with the administration of
\njustice or which would lower the authority of court.  The court has  the  duty
\nof  protecting  the  interest  of  the  community in the due administration of
\njustice and so, it is entrusted with the  power  to  commit  for  contempt  of
\ncourt,  not to protect the dignity of the court against insult, but to protect
\nthe right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted
\nor interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
        90.  The defamatory publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings
\nthe court into contempt.  Any caricature of a judge calculated  to  lower  the
\ndignity  of  the  court  would destroy, undermine the public confidence in the
\nadministration of justice or the majesty of justice.\n<\/p>\n
        91.  In order that the Judges may fearlessly and independently act  in
\nthe  discharge  of  their judicial functions, it is necessary that they should
\nhave full liberty to act within the sphere of their activity.\n<\/p>\n
        92.  A fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge,  the  institution  of
\nthe  judiciary  and its functioning may not amount to contempt if made in good
\nfaith and public interest.   To  ascertain  the  good  faith  and  the  public
\ninterest,  the  courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances including
\nthe person responsible for comments, his  knowledge  in  the  field  regarding
\nwhich  the  comments  are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved.
\nAll citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the courts  in
\nthe name  of fair criticism.  If the same is not checked, it would destroy the
\ninstitution itself.  Litigant losing in the  court  is  the  first  to  impute
\nmotives to the Judges.\n<\/p>\n
        93.   Judicial  function  cannot  and  should  not  be permitted to be
\nstonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology.\n<\/p>\n
        94.  In the instant  case,  the  petitioner  himself  is  an  advocate
\npracticing for  about 25 years.  He has got a special knowledge of law and the
\nfunctioning of the institution of judiciary.  He was also the President of the
\nMadras High Court Advocates’ Association for some years.    Therefore,  he  is
\nexpected  to  know  the  nature  of his act as well as the consequences of the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
        95.  As indicated earlier, the petitioner even before the Second Bench
\nheaded by Justice Sirpurkar, went on criticising the Supreme Court’s order  by
\nstating  that  the order of the Supreme Court dated 21.1.200 0 was against the
\nspirit of the Constitution.  Such a criticism was not allowed and  ultimately,
\nthe  Second  Bench  imposed  costs  of  Rs.2000\/-  finding that his conduct of
\ncriticising the order of the Supreme Court was most reprehensible.\n<\/p>\n
        96.  In the further writ petition filed by the petitioner  which  came
\nup  before the First Bench head by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, he insisted that
\nthe interim orders to be passed without any  delay.    When  the  First  Bench
\nwanted  to  give  time  to  the other side to file their counter to enable the
\nCourt to have a full picture of the case, he asked the First  Bench  to  grant
\nthe interim  relief immediately.  In pursuance of the persistence shown by the
\npetitioner, the First  Bench  heard  the  petitioner  and  other  counsel  and
\ndeclined to grant the interim relief.\n<\/p>\n
        97.   These  grievances  felt  by  the  petitioner at the hands of the
\nSecond Bench and the First Bench had made the petitioner to publish  the  news
\nletter called  FLAWS and distributed to the lawyers.  As noted above, there is
\na clear-cut criticism against the Hon’ble Chief Justice for having not granted
\nthe interim relief and  also  posted  the  matter  before  the  Second  Bench.
\nSimilarly,  he  made  a  statement  with  disparaging  remarks against Justice
\nSirpurkar heading the Second Bench that he was biased and his judgment against
\nhim was the product out of his partiality towards Mr.Sivanthi Adityan.\n<\/p>\n
        98.  In this context, we are to  note  that  both  the  Hon’ble  Chief
\nJustice and Hon’ble Justice Sirpurkar have earlier given some orders in favour
\nof the petitioner.  When the unfavourable orders obtained by him from the said
\ntwo Benches which passed those orders after hearing the counsel for parties at
\nlength,  Mr.Karuppan  had  hastened  to  indulge in the process of mudslinging
\nagainst the Judges concerned even without realising that  he  was  helped  and
\nencouraged by the First Bench and Second Bench by providing opportunity to him
\nto participate in the National Tournaments.\n<\/p>\n
        99.   Further, our Hon’ble The chief Justice who is able and admirable
\nand who commands respects from one and all in Tamil  Nadu,  unfortunately  has
\nbeen subjected  to  unsavoury criticism.  Similarly, Justice V.S.Sirpurkar who
\nis known for his nobility  and  uprightness  has  also  become  a  target  for
\nscandalisation.\n<\/p>\n
        100.  In this fact situation, we are at a loss to understand as to why
\nMr.Karuppan has to resort to these intimidating activities against the Judges,
\neven  though  he has experience for about 25 years in practice and he happened
\nto be the President of the Bar once.  If this is not checked, then a situation
\nmay arise and by that, the counsel by their intimidating activities would  try
\nto  obtain orders from the Judges, who may think that granting orders would be
\nbetter rather than receiving scandalisation or scathing criticism.  We  cannot
\nallow such a situation to be prevailed any more at any cost.\n<\/p>\n
        101.  The calculated contemptuous remarks and the sweeping allegations
\nagainst the Judges, which are derogatory in character not only would amount to
\ncasting  aspersions  in  the  conduct  of  Judges  in the discharging of their
\njudicial functions but also wounds the dignity of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
        102.  It is highly painful to note that Mr.Karuppan who is none  other
\nthan  an Advocate practising in the highest Court of the State for long number
\nof years and having been as the President of a great  Advocates’  Association,
\nMadras,  after  having  failed to obtain an order in his favour from the First
\nBench and Second Bench in his own cause has escalatingly scandalised both  the
\nCourts  by  by making allegations which are highly offensive, intimidatory and
\nbeyond condonable limit.\n<\/p>\n
        103.  Even a cursory reading of the remarks in the FLAWS made  against
\nour  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  as  well  as  against  Justice Sirpurkar of this
\nChartered High Court unambiguously shows that the outrageous  allegations  and
\npotentially  prejudicial  utterances made by Mr.Karuppan have struck a blow on
\nthe judiciary and also seriously sullied the great image and high esteem which
\nthe office of the Judge of the High Court carries with it and thus impeded the
\ncourse of justice.  In our opinion, the incident in  question  is  a  flagrant
\nonslaught  on  the  independence  of the judiciary, destructive of the orderly
\nadministration of justice and a challenge to the supremacy of Law.\n<\/p>\n
        104.  It is true that taking action for contempt of Court  against  an
\nAdvocate,  who  happened  to be the leader of the Bar, shall be regarded as an
\nextreme measure.  But, to protect the majesty of law, it becomes the  duty  of
\nthe  Court,  though  painful, to start the cause of taking action for contempt
\nmainly for preserving its dignity.  No one including an Advocate  who  himself
\nis an officer of the Court can claim immunity from the operation of the law of
\ncontempt,  if  his  conduct  in  relation  to  the Court interferes with or is
\ncalculated to obstruct the due course of justice.\n<\/p>\n
        105.  When a member of the Bar is required to be punished for  use  of
\ncontemptuous  language  against  the  judiciary,  it  is highly painful and it
\npleases none but painful duties have to be perforemd to uphold the honour  and
\ndignity  of  an  individual  Judge  and  his  office  and  the prestige of the
\ninstitution.\n<\/p>\n
        106.  In the light of the above principles laid down  by  the  Supreme
\nCourt in S.K.    SUNDARAM,  IN  RE (2001(2) S.C.C.  171), ARUNDHATI ROY, IN RE
\n(2002(3) S.C.C.343), P.N.  DUDA v.  P.    SHIV  SHANKER<\/a>  (1998(3)  S.C.C.167),
\nMAHABIR PRASAD SINGH v.    M\/S.    JACKS  AVIATION  PRIVATE LTD.<\/a>  ( A.I.R.1999
\nS.C.287), PRITAM PAL v.  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH<\/a> ( 19 93 S.C.C.(Cri) 356)
\nand M.B.SANGHI v.  HIGH  COURT  OF  PUNJAB<\/a>  (1991  S.C.C.(Cri)  897),  we  are
\nconstrained  to  punish  Mr.Karuppan,  the  partyin-person,  since we find him
\nguilty for the offence under Section 2(c)  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act.
\nAccordingly, he is punished for the same.\n<\/p>\n
        107.   Section  12  of  the  Act  provides  for  punishment  of simple
\nimprisonment or fine or with both.  We do not propose to send  Mr.Karuppan  to
\njail, though the act committed by him is serious which would entail punishment
\nof imprisonment.   The  reason  for the same is that Mr.  Karuppan was holding
\nonce a very important position as the  President  of  the  Madras  High  Court
\nAdvocates’ Association consisting of thousands and thousands of advocates.
\nSimilarly, we are not inclined to impose heavy fine.\n<\/p>\n
        108.   Of  course,  this  Court  has got power to impose punishment of
\nimprisonment for a period of six months or to pay a fine of Rs.2,000\/- or with
\nboth.  But, as popularly known, the Judiciary has got  wide  powers,  but  the
\ngreater the power, the greater the restraint.\n<\/p>\n
        109.  The great Tamil saint Thiruvalluvar says:\n<\/p>\n
        @foJXr;rp bky;y vwpf beoJ Mf;fk;\n<\/p>\n
        eP’;fhik ntz;L gth;.@<\/p>\n
        The translation is:\n<\/p>\n
        “The  King,  who  desires  his  rule  to prosper on a permanent basis,
\nshould make the gesture of severity when  awarding  punishment,  but  let  the
\nfinal blow fall lightly.”\n<\/p>\n
        110.   The  Judge is one, who having equitably examined any injustice,
\nsuitably punishes it, so that it may not be again committed.  The Court may be
\ntough in posture , but it has to be merciful  in  operations.    So,  let  the
\nCourts brandish  the  rods  smartly  but  lay  it  on  soft.  This is a way of
\nimposing punishment as popularly called as “Mercy Seasoning Justice” as quoted
\nby Shakesphere.\n<\/p>\n
        111.  In the light of the above discussion, we are of  the  view  that
\nimposing  the  sentence of small fine would be fine, as it would be taken as a
\ntoken for the expression of our displeasure over the conduct  of  Mr.Karuppan,
\nthe contemner.    Therefore,  while  we  find him guilty for the offence under
\nSection 2(c) of the Act, we impose a simple fine of Re.1\/- (One Rupee)  to  be
\npaid within one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
        112.   At this stage, it may be worthwhile to refer to our decision of
\ngiving suggestion  to  the  Chennai  Rifle  Club  to  re-admit  him.     While
\nconsidering  this,  we cannot forget the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in
\nS.P.  CHENGALVARAYA v.  JAGANATH (1994(1) S.C.C.1)  to  the  effect  that  the
\ncourts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and when the
\nparty comes to the court seeking for the relief, he must come with clean hands
\nand  when  there  is  no  bona  fide  in  his  conduct and when he has adopted
\nintimidating tactics to obtain some orders, this Court would  not  help  those
\nparty as it would amount to subverting the justice.\n<\/p>\n
        113.   Even though we felt that in the light of the medals he obtained
\nin 1992, 1997 and 2002, we are unable to give such suggestion as we are afraid
\nthat our suggestion may not be accepted by  the  Executive  Committee  of  the
\nChennai Rifle  Club  in  view of the past conduct of the petitioner.  The past
\nrecords of the petitioner would undoubtedly show that he has  created  enemies
\nin all  the  quarters.    He made a number of baseless allegations without any
\nmaterial against all the respondents in these writ petitions.  Even among  the
\nBar  members,  he  has  created  a  situation  where  some  members of the Bar
\nincluding the counsel for the respondents got aggrieved  over  the  scurrilous
\nallegations  made  in  the affidavit filed before this Court as well as in his
\nnews letter distributed to him.  To make the matter worse, he  invited  strong
\ncondemnation from the Judges of this Chartered High Court as well.\n<\/p>\n
        114.   In  this  context,  we recall an incident which happened in the
\nlife of Mr.Abraham Lincoln, who  was  the  President  of  America.    When  he
\ncontested  for  the Presidenship of America, out of jealousy, a lot of enemies
\nfrom several quarters worked against him in order to prevent him from becoming
\nthe President.  At last, he was elected as the  President.    As  soon  as  he
\nbecame  the  President,  he instructed his Private Secretary to inform all his
\nso-called enemies, namely Dignitaries about  his  visit  to  their  respective
\nhouses by fixing  date  and time.  Accordingly, time was fixed.  The President
\nwent to  all  the  houses  of  the  so-called  ‘enemies’  and  received  their
\ngreetings.  Then,  he  came back to the White House.  Private Secretary with a
\npolite tone with reluctance asked the President of America as to why he should
\nhave taken trouble of going to his enemies’ houses to get their greetings  and
\nis  it necessary for the President of America to go over to their places as it
\nis very easy for the President  being  the  powerful,  the  First  Citizen  of
\nAmerica to destroy his enemies by various means.  Mr.  Abraham Lincoln swiftly
\nreplied that  he did only that.  To explain, he destroyed all his enemies in a
\nsingle day by going over to their houses and making them to greet him, thereby
\nthe ill-will and the enmity they bore against him were completely annihilated.
\nMr.Abraham Lincoln is not only a role model to Americans but  also  a  classic
\nexample to every leader in this world.\n<\/p>\n
        115.  Mr.Karuppan  apparently  has not followed this example.  When he
\nbecame the President of Advocates’ Association, he must have followed the path
\nof Mr.Abraham Lincoln, the former President  of  America  by  making  all  his
\nenemies as  his friends.  On the contrary, he has maintained and created a lot
\nof enemies which resulted in our inability to give our suggestion in favour of
\nMr.Karuppan to the respondents against whom disparaging remarks have been made
\nwithout any material.  Hence, we are constrained  to  refrain  ourselves  from
\nmaking any such suggestion.\n<\/p>\n
        116.   Mr.Karuppan  claims  himself  to  be  the  best shooter winning
\nlaurels in the Shooting Range.   Refuting  his  claim,  the  counsel  for  the
\nrespondents would  state that he is only a troublemaker in the Rifle Club.  We
\ndo not want to go into this controversy.  But, one thing is clear.  We are not
\nable to hold that he is a good suitor in the Courts of law.\n<\/p>\n
        117.  To sum up:\n<\/p>\n
        (i) The writ petitions in W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121  of  20
\n03, writ appeal in W.A.No.794 of 2003 and Contempt Petition in Cont.  P.No.368
\nof 2003   are  dismissed.    Consequently,  all  the  connected  miscellaneous
\npetitions are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) In the suo motu contempt proceedings, Mr.Karuppan is found guilty
\nunder Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to pay  a  fine
\nof  Re.1\/-  (One Rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to undergo one
\nday simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
        118.  Before parting with this case, we record our  full  appreciation
\nfor  the  services  rendered  by Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General for
\nhaving taken pains in collecting judgments on the question of  maintainability
\nand produced before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        (M.K.V.J.) (S.A.J.)
\n                                                        5-12-2003
\nIndex:  Yes
\nInternet:Yes
\nmam<\/p>\n
W.P.No.20425 of 1999, W.P.No.8121 of 2003,
\nW.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003<\/p>\n
M.  KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        and
\nS.  ASHOK KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
(Order of the Court was made by M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.)
\n        This  Court  passed  orders in W.P.No.20425 of 1999, W.P.No.8121 of 20
\n03, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003 on 5.12.2003  dismissing  all
\nthe  petitions  filed  by Mr.Karuppan, the party-in-person and in the suo motu
\ncontempt proceedings  taken  against  the  said  Karuppan,  this  Court  found
\nKaruppan guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced
\nto pay a fine of Rs.1\/- (One rupee) to be paid within one month, in default to
\nundergo one day simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Karuppan,  the  party-in-person presented a letter to the Hon’ble
\nChief Justice dated 15.12.2003 requesting the Chief Justice to post the matter
\nbefore this Court (same Bench) so as to enable him to request  this  Court  to
\nrecall the earlier order passed by this Bench on 5.1 2.2003 on the ground that
\nthis Court was biased towards Sivanthi Adityan and his son.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The  Hon’ble Chief Justice issued administrative direction to the
\nRegistry on 17.12.2003 to post the said letter before this Bench which  passed
\nthe final orders, as requested by Karuppan, for being mentioned on 19.12.2003.
\nAccordingly,  this Bench was again re-constituted and this matter was taken up
\non 19.12.2003 at 2.15 p.m.<\/p>\n
        4.  Mr.Karuppan, the party-in-person argued at length from  2.30  p.m.
\nto 4.30 p.m.   reading out the said letter dated 15.12.2003.  He also read out
\nthe affidavit dated 9.12.2003 filed by him which contains the prayer that this
\nCourt should recall the order earlier passed on 5 .12.2003 making  allegations
\nquestioning  the  competency  of this Court in dealing with the writ petitions
\nand also making specific allegations against one of us (M.K.V.J)  that  he  is
\nbiased  as  he  participated  in  the  function held on 29.10.1999 arranged by
\nSivanthi Adityan and as such, there  had  been  a  long-standing  relationship
\nbetween  the  Presiding  Judge  and  Sivanthi Adityan and therefore, the final
\norders dated 5.12.2003 to be recalled and the matter to  be  referred  to  the
\nChief Justice  to  be posted for fresh hearing by some other Bench.  In short,
\nthe prayer in the letter dated 15.12.2003 and the affidavit dated  9.1  2.2003
\nis  to  recall  the  final orders passed by this Bench as one of us (M.K.V.J.)
\nnever sat in the writ portfolio all these years  and  he  was  biased  towards
\nSivanthi  Adityan  as  he is a friend to the family of Sivanthi Adityan and as
\nsecond of us (Justice Ashok Kumar) was just elevated months back and is yet to
\nsit in the writ jurisdiction.  As such, the complaint against  this  Bench  is
\nthat  one  of  us  (M.K.V.J.) is incompetent to deal with the writ matters and
\nbiased towards Sivanthi Adityan family and another  of  us  (S.A.J.)  is  also
\nincompetent as he was just elevated some months back.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   On  this  ground,  Karuppan,  the  party-in-person,  who has been
\npractising for about 25 years and who happened to be the leader of the Bar for
\nsome time, seeks to recall the order dated 5.12.2003 passed by this Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  When this Court asked Mr.Karuppan as to whether this Court has got
\npower to recall the final orders passed on 5.12.2003 on  merits,  Karuppan  on
\nthe strength  of the decision in SHIVDEO SINGH v.  STATE OF PUNJAB (A.I.R.1963
\nS.C.1909)<\/a> would state that this Court has got powers to do so.  He  has  cited
\nthe authorities  in  A.M.MATHUR  v.    PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA<\/a> (1990(2) S.C.C.533),
\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN v.  PRAKASH CHAND (JT<\/a>  1997(9)  S.C.492),  IN  RE  PINOCHET
\n(2000(I) C.T.C.580 and V.K.MAJOTRA v.  UNION OF INDIA<\/a> (2003(8) S.C.C.40).\n<\/p>\n
        7.   A.I.R.1963  S.C.1909  would  deal with the position regarding the
\npower of review under Article 226.  The Supreme Court would  observe  in  this
\ndecision thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “There is  nothing in Art.  226 of the Constitution to preclude a High
\nCourt from exercising the power of review which  inheres  in  every  court  of
\nplenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and
\npalpable errors committed by it.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,  it  is  clear  that the Supreme Court would refer to the powers of this
\nCourt under Article 226 to review the matter to prevent miscarriage of justice
\nor to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.  It does not refer to
\nthe powers of recalling the final orders on the ground that the said order was
\nbiased.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  1990(2) S.C.C.533 would  deal  with  the  judicial  restraint  and
\ndiscipline to  be maintained by the High Court Judge.  The Supreme Court would
\nfind fault with a High Court Judge for having made disparaging remarks against
\nthe Advocate General while allowing the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  JT 1997(9) S.C.492 would refer to the power of the  Chief  Justice
\nwho  is  vested  with  the  administrative  control of the High Court while on
\njudicial side.  The Apex Court would further observe that the Chief Justice is
\nthe master of Roster and has prerogative to constitute benches and to allocate
\nwork.  This observation was made by the Supreme Court  while  dealing  with  a
\ncase  where the show cause notice for contempt was issued by a single Judge of
\nthe High Court to the Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In the judgment in 2000(1) C.T.C.580, the House  of  Lords  would
\nobserve  that  no  man  should be a Judge of his own cause and if a Judge is a
\nparty to the litigation or has financial or proprietary interest in outcome of
\nsuch litigation, he is literally sitting as Judge of  his  own  cause  and  is
\nautomatically disqualified to decide such cases.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In 2003(8) S.C.C.40, the Supreme Court would deal with the powers
\nof  the  Judges  sitting  in  the  Writ  courts  directing  them to decide the
\npetitions on the points raised and if in a rare  case,  keeping  in  view  the
\nfacts  and  circumstances of the case, any additional points are to be raised,
\nthen the concerned and parties likely to be affected should be put  to  notice
\non the additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The  reading  of all these decisions would indicate that neither
\nthe House of Lords judgment nor the Supreme Court judgments  would  deal  with
\nthe  powers to recall its own final orders passed on merits on the mere ground
\nthat one of the Judges of this Bench participated in a function in  which  one
\nof the parties in the petition shared dais.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  It is now pointed out that the petitioner subsequent to the final
\norders  passed  on 5.12.2003 filed an affidavit before this Court on 9.12.2003
\nrequesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice to post the matter before this  Bench  to
\nrecall the orders.  The Hon’ble Chief Justice posted the same before the other
\nBench, viz., P.D.D.J.  and F.M.I.K.J.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The  matter  came  up  on 15.12.2003.  R.Karuppan before the said
\nBench requested time to argue the  matter  in  the  next  hearing.    He  also
\nrequested the  P.D.D.J.   Bench to de list the matter from that Bench and post
\nthe same before this Bench consisting of M.Karpagavinayagam, J.  and S.  Ashok
\nKumar,J.  However, in view of the administrative orders of the  Hon’ble  Chief
\nJustice, the  other Bench (P.D.D.J.  and F.M.I.K.J.) rejected the said request
\nand however, on the reason that he must be  given  opportunity  of  furnishing
\nwith  the grounds of objection raised by the Office as to the maintainability,
\nthe said Bench adjourned the matter to 16.12.2003 at 2.15 p.m.    Accordingly,
\nthe matter  came  up  on 16.12.2003.  Before the said Bench, another affidavit
\ndated 16 .12.2003 has been filed stating  that  the  judgment  of  Justice  M.
\nKarpaga  Vinayagam  and  Justice Ashok Kumar was sought to be recalled only on
\nthe ground of doctrine of bias on the ground that it was found that contesting
\nrespondent Sivanthi Adityan and his son were close  friends  of  His  Lordship
\nM.Karpaga Vinayagam,  J.    and that while the doctrine of bias was attributed
\nbefore the other Bench consisting of Justice  Sirpurkar  and  Justice  Ibrahim
\nKalifullah,  the  same  was  not  considered  and  therefore,  Justice Ibrahim
\nKalifullah must recuse from hearing the matter.  He would also cite A.I.R.1996
\nS.C.  513.   Before  the  said  Bench,  he  further  made  allegation  against
\nP.D.Dinakaran, J.    also stating that he along with another Judge had earlier
\nsentenced Karuppan to undergo two days imprisonment and as such, he must  also
\nbe recused from the hearing.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   Refusing  to recuse themselves from hearing the matter, the said
\nBench  consisting  of  P.D.Dinakaran,  J  and  F.M.Ibrahim   Kalifullah,   J.,
\nconsidering the  arguments  of  Mr.Karuppan and also the judgment A.I.  R.1996
\nS.C.513 cited by him, found that the matter posted  before  them,  namely  the
\naffidavit  bearing  W.P.S.R.No.151726  of  2003  to  recall  the  order  dated
\n5.12.2003  need  not  be  posted  before  the   same   Bench   consisting   of
\nM.Karpagavinayagam, J.   and  S.Ashok  Kumar,  J.   and also of the considered
\nopinion  that  the   motive   attributed   against   the   Presiding   Officer
\n(M.Karpagavinayagam,  J.)  in the affidavit filed by the petitioner seeking to
\nrecall the order dated 5.12.2003 made in W.P.Nos.204 25 of 1999  and  8121  of
\n2003,  W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, is not supported with any
\nformal application, and even otherwise the same is liable to be rejected as an
\nafter thought and belated one.  This order was passed on 16.12.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  However, it is mentioned in the said order dated 16.12.2003  that
\n“we are  of the considered opinion that the matter posted before us, viz.  the
\naffdiavit  bearing  W.P.S.R.No.151726  of  2003  to  recall  the  order  dated
\n5.12.2003  made  in W.P.Nos.20425 of 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002
\nand Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, need not necessarily be heard  by  the  same  Bench
\nconsisting of M.Karpagavinayagam, J.    and  S.  Ashok Kumar, J.  unless it is
\notherwise directed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.        Though the said  Bench
\nfound  that  the matter need not be heard by the same Bench, it does not put a
\nhurdle to the Hon’ble Chief Justice from directing the  Registry  to  put  the
\nmatter before the same Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   When  the  letter dated 15.12.2003 was placed before the Hon’ble
\nChief Justice on 17.12.2003, the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice,  probably  to  give
\nfurther  opportunity  to  Karuppan  to  make  submission  on  the same prayer,
\ndirected the Office to post before the same Bench consisting of M.K.V.J.   and
\nS.A.K.J.   for  being mentioned on 19.12.2003 to enable the petitioner to make
\nsubmission  in  regard  to  the  prayer  for  recalling  the   final   orders.
\nAccordingly, the matter was taken up by this Court on 19.12.2003 at 2.15 p.m.<\/p>\n
        18.   We  have gone through the letter dated 15.12.2003 which has been
\nplaced before this Court on the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for  being
\nmentioned.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   As  indicated  above, Karuppan would submit that the judgment of
\nthis Court dated 5.12.2003 was hit by the doctrine of bias, since  one  of  us
\nsat  in judgment in an issue where his family friend has involved and that the
\njudgment was a nullity and therefore, the said orders to be recalled  and  the
\nmatter to be referred to the Chief Justice to be posted for fresh hearing.  He
\nhad  also  read  over the letter dated 15.12.2003 and also the affidavit dated
\n9.12.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  He would contend that when there is a power for the Judges during
\nthe pendency of enquiry to  recuse  themselves  from  the  Bench  hearing  the
\nmatter,  the  same  power  would  be available even after passing of the final
\norders to recuse themselves from the Bench by recalling the  order  passed  by
\nthis  Bench  and  to  refer  the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for fresh
\nhearing.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  He would cite the  judgment  reported  in  A.I.R.1996  S.C.513  (
\nsupra).  The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “If  there  be  a  basis which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a
\nlitigant to expect that his matter should not be heard by a  particular  Judge
\nand  there  is no compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative,
\nit is appropriate that the learned Judge should recuse himself from the  Bench
\nhearing that  matter.   This step is required to be taken by the learned Judge
\nnot because he is likely to be influenced in any manner in  doing  justice  to
\nthe  cause,  but  because  his  hearing the matter is likely to give rise to a
\nreasonable apprehension in the mind of the  litigant  that  the  mind  of  the
\nlearned  Judge,  may be subconsciously, has been influenced by some extraneous
\nfactor in making the decision, particularly if it happens to be in  favour  of
\nthe opposite party.   ……  This is necessary not only for doing justice but
\nalso for ensuring that justice is seen to be done.”\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The very same judgment has been  cited  before  the  other  Bench
\nconsisting of P.D.Dinakaran,  J.    and  F.M.Ibrahim  Kalifullah, J.  The said
\nDivision Bench by the order  dated  16.12.2003  rejected  his  contention  and
\nrefused  to  recall  the  order passed by this Court as the observation of the
\nSupreme Court would not apply to the present  case,  as  they  are  unable  to
\nappreciate  under  what  context and to what extent the ratio laid down by the
\nApex Court cited supra is violated.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  The reading of the Apex Court judgment would  clearly  show  that
\nwhen there is an apprehension expressed by the party concerned that there is a
\nbasis  which  cannot  be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that
\nhis matter should not be heard  by  a  particular  Judge,  then  it  would  be
\nappropriate  that  the  learned  Judge  should  recuse  himself from the Bench
\nhearing that matter.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  This fact situation is not available in this case.  As  a  matter
\nof fact,  these  matters  came  up  before the First Bench.  The Supreme Court
\ndismissed S.L.P.Nos.4501 and 4502 of 2003 filed  by  the  petitioner,  by  the
\norder  dated  6.3.2003  with an observation that the High Court may dispose of
\nthe writ appeal expeditiously along with the connected matter, if any.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  In pursuance of the said direction,  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice
\nposted the  matter  before  the  Third  Division Bench.  Thereafter, the Third
\nDivision Bench decided not to hear the matter  and  placed  before  the  Chief
\nJustice  for  posting  it  before some other Bench, as sufficient time was not
\navailable for them to hear.  Then, the matter was posted  before  the  Seventh
\nBench.   There, Karuppan, the petitioner felt that the Seventh Bench proceeded
\nto predetermine even at the outset, he sought the posting of the matter before
\nsome other Bench.  In pursuance of his  request,  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice
\nposted it before the Eighth Bench consisting of Justice M.Karpagavinayagam and
\nJustice S.  Ashok Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   Since  he  felt that sufficient opportunity was not given by the
\nother Bench this Bench comprising of  M.Karpagavinayagam,  J  and  S.    Ashok
\nKumar, J.    heard  the  matter  by  posting  the  matter  on  several  dates.
\nMr.Karuppan was fully heard.  In the same way, the counsel for the respondents
\nalso were allowed to argue the matter in their own way at length.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  The matter was taken up on 4.8.2003 and has been heard on several
\ndates and ultimately, when this Court wanted  to  take  suo  motu  proceedings
\nregarding  the  contempt against Karuppan with reference to FLAWS, a news item
\npublished by him criticising the Chief  Justice  and  another  Judge  of  this
\nCourt, the matter was posted on ..  and in-camera enquiry was conducted in the
\nChamber  itself,  so  that  the  Court can have free discussion with the party
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  As mentioned in the order dated 5.12.2003, this  Bench  indicated
\nto  Mr.Karuppan, while issuing show cause notice in the suo motu contempt, its
\nmind that the allegations contained in ‘FLAWS’  against  the  Judges  of  this
\nCourt are  contumacious.   This Bench further advised the petitioner to file a
\nsuitable affidavit tendering  unconditional  apology  so  that  the  suo  motu
\nproceedings could  be dropped.  Even then, Karuppan, the party-in-person filed
\ncounter-affidavit justifying his act.  This matter also was heard  on  several
\ntimes  and  the  in-camera  enquiry  was  conducted  in  the  Chamber  itself.
\nUltimately, on 5.12.2003, this Court  passed  an  order  dismissing  the  writ
\npetitions,  writ appeal and contempt petition filed by him and in the suo motu
\nproceedings, he was convicted for  the  offence  under  Section  2(c)  of  the
\nContempt of Courts Act and he was fined to pay one rupee.\n<\/p>\n
        29.   On  9.12.2003,  he  filed an affidavit to recall the final order
\nmaking allegations against  this  Bench  as  it  is  biased  towards  Sivanthi
\nAdityan.   As  indicated  above, his prayer was rejected by the other Bench by
\nthe order dated 16.12.2003.  However, the Hon’ble Chief Justice by  the  order
\ndated  17.12.2003  directed  the  Registry to post the letter dated 15.12.2003
\nbefore this Court for being mentioned to hear him with reference to the prayer
\nof recalling the orders dated 5.12.2003 on the ground of bias.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  We have carefully heard the submissions of Mr.Karuppan and  given
\nour thoughtful considerations.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   On such consideration, we are of the opinion that this prayer is
\nliable to be rejected on three grounds which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) None of the decisions cited by Karuppan would indicate  that  this
\nCourt has got powers to recall the final orders passed earlier on merits after
\nfull hearing  merely  on the ground of bias.  After pronouncement of the final
\njudgment on merits, this Court becomes functus officio.    Thus,  we  are  not
\ncompetent  to  recall  our  own order and to give the relief sought for in the
\nletter dated 15.12.2003 and the affidavit dated 9.12.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) When we go through the records produced by the party in person  to
\nfind  out  whether any basis regarding the apprehension of bias towards one of
\nthe parties, we find, there is nothing.  The only material placed before  this
\nCourt  on  19.12.2003 is the copy of the Daily Thanthi dated 28.9.1999 wherein
\nit is published that Justice  Karpagavinayagam  presented  the  award  to  the
\nformer Chief  Justice  M.M.Ismail for his contribution to the literature.  The
\nfunction was arranged by the orgaisation  of  Daily  Thanthi  and  one  of  us
\n(Justice M.  Karpagavinayagam) participated and appreciated the service of the
\nformer  Chief  Justice  M.M.Ismail  for  his service to the literary field and
\nnothing more than that.  Admittedly,  this  function  was  held  on  27.9.1999
\nattended by  the  elite  audience  including  the public.  We are at a loss to
\nunderstand as to how the participation of one of the Judges  in  the  function
\narranged  as  literary  function  which  was intended to give the award to the
\nformer Chief Justice in the name of  C.P.Adhithanar  Literary  Award  Function
\nwould  give  rise  to  the suspicion of the biased attitude against one of the
\nJudges towards the son of the said C.P.   Adhithanar.    As  indicated  above,
\nKaruppan  would  invariably use to seek for transfer of case from one Bench to
\nanother on one reason or other.  When the matter was argued before  the  Bench
\nconsisting of  V.S.Sirpurkar, J.  and F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah, J., he asked for
\ntransfer of the matter to another Bench and the same was  refused.    When  he
\nargued  before  the  Bench  headed by Justice N.V.Balasubramanian, the similar
\nrequest was made and ultimately, the Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  transferred  the
\nmatter before  this  Bench.   The matter went on before this Bench for several
\nhearings for about two months.  No complaint  was  made  against  this  Bench.
\nAfter  final  order  was  passed  by  this  Bench,  he  filed an affidavit for
\nrecalling the order and the same was posted before P.D.  Dinakaran,  J.    and
\nF.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah, J.  He also made allegations against both these Judges
\nand  consequently,  requested  the said Bench to recuse themselves and post it
\nbefore another Bench.  Thus, it is clear that Karuppan,  the  party-in-person,
\nwho  has  been  practising  for  about  25  years  as  Advocate, bent upon for
\nBench-hunting by making all sorts of allegations against the Judges concerned.
\nThe detailed order passed by this Court on 5.12.2003 also would show that  the
\nmoment  he  is  not able to get favourable orders from the Bench concerned, he
\nwould resort to making allegations against the said Bench.    The  Judges  who
\nwere the  victims earlier are the First Bench and the Second Bench.  Now, this
\nBench has  become  a  target  for  his  unwarranted  allegations.    The  only
\ndifference  is  that  we  became  target after the final order, whereas others
\nduring the enquiry.  Therefore , recalling cannot be done on the basis of bias
\nwhich has been attributed against this Bench without any basis.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) As indicated above, the similar prayer has been  made  before  the
\nBench consisting of  P.D.Dinakaran,  J.    and F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah, J.  The
\nabove Bench rejected the said prayer on the following reason:\n<\/p>\n
        “We are of the considered opinion that the motive  attributed  against
\nthe  Presiding  Officer (M.Karpagavinayagam, J.) in the affidavit filed by the
\npetitioner seeking to recall the order dated 5.12.2003 made  in  W.P.Nos.20425
\nof 1999 and 8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003, is not
\nsupported  with  any formal application, and even otherwise the same is liable
\nto be rejected as an after thought and belated one.”\n<\/p>\n
We are in entire agreement with the above  finding.    This  Bench,  as  noted
\nabove, heard  this  matter  on several dates.  The publication was made in the
\nDaily Thanthi, which is the largest circulated daily, wherein the former Chief
\nJustice was given award by one of the Judges on 27.9.1999.  It cannot be  said
\nthat the  said  publication  was not known to the petitioner.  This matter was
\nposted before this Bench in 2003.  On 5.12.2003, the final order has  been  pa
\nssed.  Till then, there was no complaint.  On 8.12.2003, he filed W.P.No.36000
\nof  2003  seeking the similar relief in the writ petitions disposed of by this
\nCourt on 5.12.2003 and the  same  was  rejected  on  12.12.2003.    When  that
\npetition  came  up before Justice P.Sathasivam, the counsel for the respondent
\nMr.P.S.  Raman brought to the notice of the said Bench about the orders passed
\non 5.12.2003 by this Bench.  Ultimately, the said writ petition was  dismissed
\non  12.12.2003 on the basis of various judgments of this Court as well as this
\nDivision Bench order dated 5.12.2003.  Nothing was mentioned by the petitioner
\nbefore the said Bench that the said order dated 5.12.2003 was nullity  on  the
\nbasis of  doctrine  of  bias.  Only on 9.12.2003, he prepared an affidavit and
\nfiled the same along with  the  letter  dated  15.12.2003  making  allegations
\nagainst this Bench, particularly against M.Karpagavinayagam, J.\n<\/p>\n
        As  a  matter  of  fact, as noted above, the main matter posted before
\nthis Bench was adjourned for several dates to enable  both  Karuppan  and  the
\ncounsel for  the  other parties would argue at full length.  It is to be noted
\nin this context  that  whenever  Karuppan  argued  referring  to  the  alleged
\nmisdeeds of  Sivanthi  Adityan  invariably,  Mr.P.S.    Raman,  the counsel of
\nSivanthi Adityan would object to the same.  On those occasions, this Bench had
\nasked Mr.P.S.Raman not to interrupt with the arguments of  Mr.Karuppan  as  he
\nshould  be  allowed to make his submission in his own way as he felt sincerely
\nthat he was sidelined and prevented from participating in the tournaments only
\ndue to the intervention of Sivanthi  Adityan.    Despite  that,  to  attribute
\nmotive  against  one  of us stating that one of us was biased towards Sivanthi
\nAdityan for the first time on 15.12.2003 is  not  only  unwarranted  but  also
\nunethical.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prayer sought
\nfor  recalling  of  the  order  dated  5.12.2003  is liable to be rejected and
\naccordingly, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  Before parting with this case, we are to deal  with  yet  another
\nsad feature.\n<\/p>\n
        33.   As  indicated above, the petitioner, party-in-person, instead of
\nrealising his mistake with reference to the contempt committed by him  against
\nthe  sitting  Judges  of  this  Court including the Hon’ble Chief Justice, has
\nindulged in mud-throwing on the Judges of this Bench, feeling disappointed  as
\nhe was unable to get any favourable order from this Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        34.   In  this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to the various
\nstatements made by the petitioner in the letter which has been  placed  before
\nthis  Bench  on  being  mentioned as well as in the affidavit, which were read
\nover to this Court by Karuppan.  The relevant statements in the letter are  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Only   now   after   the   furore   did  we  realize  why  Mr.Justice
\nKarpagavinayagam who never sat in the writ portfolio all these years was asked
\nto adjudicate this case.  Needless to state that  the  other  companion  Judge
\nMr.Justice  Ashok Kumar was just elevated months back and is yet to sit in the
\nwrit jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.Justice Karpagavinayagam went on to hear piece meal once in a  week
\nor  even  longer  just  for about 45 minutes, despite my plea that I wanted to
\npractice shooting and that I was vying for taking part in the Olympics.\n<\/p>\n
        ……The learned Judge was following novel procedure in the course of
\nhearing which is not known hitherto.  ……  On Monday it  was  mentioned  to
\nMr.Justice  Karpagavinayagam  and  yourself,  that  the  judgment  rendered by
\nMr.Justice Karpagavinayagam’s bench was a hit by the doctrine of bias  for  he
\nhad  sat  in  judgment  in  an  issue where his family friend and his son were
\ninvolved and that the judgment was a nullity.”\n<\/p>\n
        35.  The following are the statements of Karuppan as contained in  the
\naffidavit dated 9.12.2003:\n<\/p>\n
        “I  learnt  from  the inquisitive and concerned quarters that Sivanthi
\nAdithyan and his son Balasubramania Adithyan are close friends of the  Hon’ble
\nPresiding Judge.    I also learnt that due to such a relationship, the Hon’ble
\nJudge was invited to preside over a function organized  by  Sivanthi  Adithyan
\nand his son.    ….    To  my  shock and disbelief I found in the issue dated
\n29.10.1999 in the first page the presiding Judge of  this  case  had  presided
\nover  the  said  function  and  had  paid  encomiums  and tributes to Sivanthi
\nAdithyan and his son.  ….  This depicted that there had been a long standing
\nrelationship between the presiding Judge and Sivanthi Adithyan.  …  He  also
\npraised Sivanthi  and  his  son.    In  this background when the Chief Justice
\nconstituted a special bench presided over by him to  hear  these  matter,  the
\npresiding judge  should  have  recused  himself.  Or else in course of hearing
\nfairly informed about this relationship with the respondent and his  son,  who
\nwere the subject  matter  of  all the four cases.  …..  In the light of this
\nrelationship the presiding officer was disqualified  from  the  day  one  from
\nhearing this case.  Thereby the entire exercise is a nullity.  The judgment is
\nvoid-ab-initio.  …..  There was absolutely no justification for inviting the
\nAdvocate General to  address the Court on maintainability.  …  This order is
\na classic illustration of Coram Non Judice.  ……    The  judgment  was  not
\nissued on  the  pronounced day.  We were given to understand that the same was
\ntaken over the residence of  the  presiding  Judge  for  certain  corrections.
\nAfter  pronouncement  it  cannot  be  corrected  for the Judge becomes functus
\nofficio.  ….  On reading the  judgment  now,  a  portion  praising  Sivanthi
\nAdithyan  and his great qualities said to have been read out while pronouncing
\nthe judgment was not to be found.  The such alteration of the  judgment  after
\npronouncement is unjustified and warrants the recalling of the same.”\n<\/p>\n
        36.   The  above  statements  contained  both in the letter and in the
\naffidavit which were read over to this Court  would  make  out  the  following
\nallegations in gist:\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  Both  Justice  M.Karpagavinayagam and Justice S.Ashok Kumar never
\nsat in the writ portfolio earlier and as such, posting of the  writ  petitions
\nbefore the said Judges is wrong.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  The  Bench  went  on  to  hear  piecemeal once in a week and has
\nfollowed novel procedure in the course of hearing which is not known hitherto.
\nThere is no justification to invite Advocate General to address the  Court  on
\nmaintainability.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)  The  Presiding  Judge  participated in the function arranged by
\nSivanthi Adityan and paid encomium to Sivantthi Adityan and  his  son  in  the
\nyear 1999.    Thus,  there  had  been a long-standing relationship between the
\nPresiding Judge and Sivanthi Adityan.  In the function,  he  praised  Sivanthi
\nAdityan and  his  son.    In  that  situation, the Presiding Judge should have
\nrecused himself when the matter was posted before his Bench.  As such, failure
\nto do so would result in the disqualification on the  part  of  the  Presiding
\nJudge to hear the case.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv)  The  judgment  was  read over by the Presiding Judge in the open
\nCourt.  In that, a portion praising Sivanthi Adityan and his  great  qualities
\nwas also  read  out.    But,  on  the  same date, the Presiding Judge took the
\njudgment to his residence and corrected the same  and  after  correction,  the
\nportion praising  Sivanthi  Adityan  is  not  to  be  found.    Therefore, the
\nalteration of the judgment after  pronouncement  by  the  Presiding  Judge  is
\nunjustified.\n<\/p>\n
        37.   The  crux of the statements made in the letter as well as in the
\naffidavit by Karuppan would certainly be construed to be contumacious throwing
\nmud on this Bench, particularly on the Presiding Judge of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        38.  The first allegation is that both the  Presiding  Judge  and  the
\ncompanion Judge  never  sat  in  the  portfolio  of  writ  petitions.  This is
\nfactually wrong.  The Presiding Judge was elevated to the Bench in 19 96.   He
\nwas  sitting  as single Judge in disposal of writ petitions final disposal for
\nvarious periods.  He was also sitting along with senior Judge in the  disposal
\nof Writ  appeals  for  some  period.  The companion Judge also though has been
\nrecently elevated, had been entrusted with the work of writ petitions and  the
\nsame was  done by him.  This allegation against the Presiding Judge as well as
\nagainst the companion Judge with reference to their competence  to  deal  with
\nthe writ petitions is highly unwarranted.  Further, the petitioner who has got
\na  standing  for  about  25  years  should  not have resorted to criticise the
\nHon’ble Chief Justice over his act of allocation of portfolios to  the  Judges
\nconcerned  as  it  is  his  prerogative  right  to vest the portfolio with the
\nparticular Judge.\n<\/p>\n
        39.  The  second  allegation  is  that  this  Bench  adopted  a  novel
\nprocedure.  It is quite unfortunate on the part of the petitioner to make such
\nan  allegation  since  this  Court  was  compassionate  towards  the  parties,
\nespecially to Karuppan, as this Court felt that he was fighting for the  cause
\nfor long  number  of  years.  That was the reason as to why, though Roster has
\nbeen changed, the matter  was  posted  for  several  weeks  unmindful  of  the
\ninconvenience  caused  to  the Judges of this Bench who were at that time were
\nsitting in single Judge portfolios.  When this Court decided to take suo  motu
\nproceedings against the petitioner, we felt that it could be better to have in
\nchamber  and  to  conduct  enquiry  as  in-camera proceeding in order to avoid
\nembarrassment likely to be felt by Karuppan  who  is  an  Advocate.    Without
\nunderstanding  the  gracious  gesture  shown  by  this  Bench, Mr.Karuppan has
\nresorted to state in the form of affidavit that this  Court  adopted  a  novel
\nprocedure which  has  not  been  seen  so  far.  This statement is nothing but
\nmischievous.  As a matter of fact, as  indicated  above,  the  arguments  were
\ncommenced  on 5.8.2003 and heard on several dates and most of the matters were
\nheard in open Court making the other advocates to  wait.    Lastly,  for  some
\nhearings,  the  matter  went on as in-camera proceeding in the Chamber to deal
\nwith the suo motu proceeding taken against Karuppan.  As mentioned in the main
\norder, we have sufficiently indicated to  Karuppan  in  the  Chamber  that  he
\nshould  not  have resorted to distribution of pamphlets criticising the Judges
\nof this Court and for that, he must realise his mistake and to file a suitable
\naffidavit to enable this Court to drop the proceedings against him.   Karuppan
\ndid not  incline  to  understand  this  clue given by this Bench.  However, he
\nfiled a counter-affdidavit justifying the act  of  distribution  of  pamphlets
\nmaking scurrilous  allegations  against the Judges of this Court.  In spite of
\nthe opportunities given by this Court to Karuppan to realise his  mistake,  he
\nhas  gone to the extent of saying that it is a novel procedure adopted by this
\nBench without understanding the noble gesture  shown  by  this  Bench  towards
\nKaruppan.    As  such,  the  statements  made  by  Karuppan  would  amount  to
\ncriticising the functioning of  the  Judges  of  this  Court  which  is  quite
\nunwarranted.   Further, the Advocate General was appointed as Amicus Curiae to
\nassist this Bench in order to ascertain the question of maintainability in the
\nlight  of  the  objection  raised  by  the  respondent’s  counsel   over   the
\nmaintainability.   The  Advocate  General  cited  number  of decisions only in
\nfavour of  the  petitioner.    Therefore,  there  is  nothing  wrong  in   the
\nappointment of Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n
        40.   Thirdly,  it  is said that the judgment of this Bench was hit by
\nthe doctrine of bias as the Presiding Judge of this Court had participated  in
\nthe  function  arranged  by  the Daily Thanthi and the Presiding Judge praised
\nSivanthi Adityan and his son who were sitting in the dais.  Firstly, it is  to
\nbe stated that this is a literary function arranged by C.P.Adhithanar Trust on
\nbehalf of  the  Daily  Thanthi.  The purpose of the function was to distribute
\nawards to Justice M.M.Ismail, former Chief Justice of the  Madras  High  Court
\nand  to one Kavingnar Vairamuthu who is considered to be a great poet of Tamil
\nNadu.  It is stated that the Presiding Judge has praised Sivanthi Adityan  and
\nhis son in  his speech.  This is factually incorrect.  The Presiding Judge has
\nnever made a speech in that meeting praising Sivanthi Adityan or his son.   On
\nthe  other hand, he gave encomiums only to former Chief Justice M.M.Ismail and
\nPon.Vairamuthu, who were conferred with the award on that occasion.   He  also
\nexhorted  the  literary  personalities to motivate the people to take a vow to
\neradicate corruption at all levels in  the  light  of  the  Gandhian  concept.
\nTherefore,  to  contend that the Presiding Judge was biased and he was invited
\nfor the function since he was friend to Sivanthi Adityan’s family, is  without
\nbasis.   It  is  quite unfortunate to contend that the Presiding Judge praised
\nSivanthi Adityan and his son in his speech when the speech  published  in  the
\nDaily  Thanthi  would  show  that  speech  was made praising only former Chief
\nJustice and the poet Vairamuthu and no praising reference has been made  about
\nSivanthi Adityan  or  his  son.    Further,  it is to be stated that the Daily
\nThanthi used to invite every year the Judges of this Court and request them to
\ngive award to the literary personalities.  In that way, the Presiding Judge of
\nthis  Court  also  participated  in  that  function  in  which  he  was  given
\nopportunity  to  give  the  award  to  the former Chief Justice of Madras High
\nCourt.  The Presiding Judge would assert that he never maintained relationship
\nwith Sivanthi Adityan either before the said function or  after  the  function
\nwhich was held in the year 1999.\n<\/p>\n
        41.   The last allegation is that the Presiding Judge has read out the
\nportion in the open Court while pronouncing  the  judgment  praising  Sivanthi
\nAdityan  and  his  son  and  the  same has been corrected and ultimately, that
\nportion is not found in the judgment.  This is atrocious untruth.  This  Court
\nnever  made any observation praising Sivanthi Adityan and his son and that was
\nnot the issue raised in the matter.  This Court dealt with the  question  with
\nreference to  maintainability.  This Court never gave a finding with reference
\nto the alleged misdeeds committed by Sivanthi Adityan and others.  This  Court
\nonly  said  that  no  materials  have  been  placed  by  Karuppan to prove his<\/p>\n
allegation against the respondent.  As such, there is no  necessity  for  this
\nCourt to  praise  Sivanthi  Adityan and his son.  The allegation regarding the
\nalleged alteration is nothing but mud-slinging.\n<\/p>\n
        42.  It is to be pointed out that on 5.12.2003, the Presiding Judge of
\nthis Court pronounced the judgment  by  reading  the  entire  portion  of  the
\njudgment and  the  same  took about 45 minutes.  On that day, Karuppan was not
\npresent.  But, his junior was present.  As requested by his  junior,  on  that
\nday, Karuppan’s presence was dispensed with.  In such a situation, there is no
\nreason  as  to  why  Karuppan  had  to  say that the judgment was taken to the
\nresidence of the Presiding Judge and alteration was made removing the  portion
\npraising Sivanthi Adityan and his son.  This, in our view, shows that Karuppan
\nwanted to make out something or the other to attribute motive and to throw mud
\non the Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        43.   The  chequered  history  of  this  case  and  the conduct of the
\npetitioner, the party in person would clearly show  that  the  petitioner  has
\nmade  a  disparaging  statement  which is calculated to interfere with the due
\ncourse of justice and proper administration of law.  Even when  the  arguments
\nwere  going  on on 19.12.2003, Mr.Karuppan would submit that he would send the
\ndetails of  the  meetings  participated  by  the  Presding  Judge  in  several
\nfunctions  to  the  President  of  India  as  well as to the Supreme Court and
\ncomplain about the Presiding Judge.  From this, it is clear  that  Mr.Karuppan
\nhas  indulged in adopting browbeating and bullying methodology to threaten the
\nJudges of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        44.  As we have seen earlier, he criticised the order of  the  Supreme
\nCourt when  the  matter  was  argued before Sirupurkar, J.  Bench and the said
\nBench imposed costs of Rs.2,000\/- for his act of criticising the Supreme Court
\ncondemning his conduct.  Thereafter, he criticised Justice  Sirpurkar  himself
\nin  the  review  application and the same has been dismissed by the said Bench
\ncondemning his act as reprehensible.  Even after the dismissal of the  S.L.P.,
\nchallenging  the said order, Karuppan has not cared to file an application for
\ndeletion of costs or to pay the costs.  Even thereafter, he bent upon  seeking
\nfor transfer  from Bench to Bench making some sort of allegations.  The letter
\naddressed to the Hon’ble Chief  Justice  placed  before  us  as  well  as  the
\naffidavit  read  out  to  us would contain the disparaging remarks against the
\nJudges of this Court which would show that he made insinuation  and  criticism
\nwith reference  to  the  functioning of the Hon’ble Chief Justice as well.  As
\nsuch, it is obvious that Karuppan  has  been  continuing  to  make  outrageous
\ncriticisms  and  allegations  against the Supreme Court as well as against the
\nFirst Bench, against the Second Bench and ultimately, against  this  Bench  as
\nwell.  This is purely contempt.\n<\/p>\n
        45.   Taking  action for contempt of Court against an advocate, who is
\npractising for about 25 years and who happened to be the leader of Bar,  shall
\nbe regarded  as  an  extreme  measure.  It is highly painful for this Bench to
\ninitiate contempt proceeding against a member of the Bar as it  pleases  none.
\nHowever,  to  protect  the  majesty of law, it becomes the duty of this Court,
\nthough painful, to start the cause of taking action for  contempt  mainly  for
\npreserving its  dignity.    No  one  including  an  Advocate who himself is an
\nofficer of the Court can claim immunity from  the  operation  of  the  law  of
\ncontempt,  if  his  conduct  in  the Court interferes with or is calculated to
\nobstruct the due course of justice.\n<\/p>\n
        46.   In  the  above  circumstances,  we  feel  that  the  allegations
\ncontained  in the letter and the affidavit filed by Karuppan would prima facie
\nshow that the petitioner has committed contempt which necessitated this  Court
\nto  take  suo  motu  contempt  proceeding  against him and to issue show cause
\nnotice to the petitioner.  Accordingly, the suo motu proceedings are initiated
\nby exercising the suo motu power conferred and show cause notice returnable in
\nfour weeks is issued to the petitioner asking him to give  explanation  as  to
\nwhy  he  should  not  be  punished  for the said offence under the Contempt of
\nCourts Act.\n<\/p>\n
        47.  Since this Court feels that the petitioner  has  been  committing
\ncontempt  of  this Court regularly and repeatedly, it would be better to issue
\nnotice to the Advocate General, the  President  of  Bar  Association  and  the
\nPresident  of Advocates’ Association, so that their assistance could be sought
\nto decide about the various issues arising in the matter.  It  would  also  be
\nbetter to hear the matter by a larger Bench and dispose of the same in view of
\nthe importance  attached  to  the  issue.   Therefore, notice is issued to the
\nAdvocate General, President of Bar Association  and  President  of  Advocates’
\nAssociation.   The Registry is directed to place the matter before My Lord the
\nHon’ble the Chief Justice to post the same before the  appropriate  Bench  for
\nhearing and disposal.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
mam<\/p>\n
                        W.P.No.20425 of 1999 etc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05\/12\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR W.P.No.20425 of 1999 and W.P.No.8121 of 2003, W.A.No.794 of 2002 and Cont.P.No.368 of 2003 W.P.No.20425 of 1999: R.Karuppan .. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-29T22:40:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"97 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T22:40:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":18999,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003\",\"name\":\"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T22:40:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-29T22:40:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"97 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T22:40:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003"},"wordCount":18999,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003","name":"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T22:40:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karuppan-vs-the-patron-of-chennai-rifle-club-on-5-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Karuppan vs The Patron Of Chennai Rifle Club on 5 December, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}