The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid adoption of amendments to the GFA Statute as per Article 51(4), the obligation of GFA to respect the directives of AIFF and the National Sports Code, and the public interest in the efficient and fair administration of National Sports Federations.

JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. From time to time, this matter was posted at the end of the admission Board for the final hearing. Finally, the parties completed their pleadings and accordingly, this matter was finally heard on 06.09.2022 and 07.09.2022. On conclusion of the arguments, this matter was reserved for orders.

3. Accordingly, we formally issue the Rule in this Petition and make the rule returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The Petitioner, a registered society affiliated with the Goa Football Association - respondent no.4 (GFA), by instituting this petition, challenges the amendments to its Statute allegedly agreed to in the special general body meeting held on 03.02.2019. Almost the only consequence of the impugned amendment is to delete clause 27(h) of the GFA statute, which had provided that an Executive Committee Member shall cease to be a member of the Committee if he or she has attained the age of 70 years.

5. The Petitioner alleges that this amendment is contrary to the directives of the All India Football Federation (AIFF), which are binding on the GFA, contrary to the National Sports Code. Furthermore, the impugned amendment was brought about in flagrant breach of the provisions in Article 51 of the GFA statute since such amendments were never agreed to by two-thirds of the members present and eligible to vote in the special general body meeting held on 03.02.2019.

6. Mr Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, referred us to the GFA Statutes to point out how according to him, the AIFF directives bind the GFA. He pointed out that even the National Sports Code binds the GFA. He pointed out that the GFA accepting this position, based on the unanimous approval of all its constituent members, at the special EGM held on 29.07.2018, amended the GFA Statutes so that such Statute aligns with the AIFF directives and the National Sports Code. He pointed out that the AIFF directives and the Code explicitly provide that the office bearers of Football Associations throughout the country must cease to hold office upon attaining the age of 70 years. He submitted that such a provision was made in the public interest. He submitted that the impugned amendment was brought about illegally only to benefit respondent no.5, who wishes to cling to power indefinitely.

7. Mr Mulgaonkar submits that the note circulated by the acting Secretary before the Special EGM of 03.02.2019 incorrectly refers to the 2018 amendments not being registered or incorporated in the Constitution. Mr Mulgaonkar submits that all these were mere excuses to undo the effect of the 2018 amendments that were carried out with unanimous support so that the GFA statute is consistent with the directives of AIFF and the National Sports Code. Mr Mulgaonkar pointed out that none of the 2018 amendments were disturbed except the deletion of Article 27(h), which had restricted the tenure of the office bearers until they attained the age of 70.

8. Mr Mulgaonkar points out that this Petition was instituted in April 2019, by which date respondent no.5 had not attained the age of 70 years. He, however, submitted that respondent no.5 attained the age of 70 years on 16.05.2019 and, accordingly, should have ceased to operate as the President of GFA. He, therefore, submits that necessary directions should be issued to ensure that respondent no.5 no longer functions as the President of the GFA.

9. Mr Mulgaonkar pointed out that though GFA might not be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it was a public body discharging public functions and, therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. V/s. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 741. Board of Control for Cricket in India V/s. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 251. S. Nithya V/s. Secr