The election procedures of sports associations must strictly adhere to the National Sports Development Code, preserving electoral integrity and compliance with established tenure restrictions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Considering the orders made earlier, we issue the Rule and make it returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner challenges the election schedule for the election to elect the executive committee of the Maharashtra State Kabaddi Association (Respondent No. 4) for the term 2024-2028.

4. The petitioner has alleged that the impugned schedule was in total breach of the National Sport Federation Development Code of India, 2011 (‘sports code’ for short), and this was despite specific directions being issued by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P Rao vs. Union of India, [223/DHC0/000974], declaring that the sports code would equally apply, inter alia for elections to associations affiliated with the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India - Respondent No.3.

th June 2024:-

“1. Leave is granted to the Petitioners to amend the above Petition by joining Mr. Pratap Shinde and Mr. Sudhakar Ghag as Respondent No.6 and 7 to the above Writ Petition. The amendment shall be carried out by 24th July 2024. Re-verification is dispensed with.

2. Once the amendment is carried out, the Registry is directed to issue notice to Mr. Pratap Shinde and Mr. Sudhakar Ghag returnable on 6^th August 2024. In addition to the Court notice the advocates for the Petitioners are permitted to serve the said Mr. Pratap Shinde and Mr. Sudhakar Ghag with the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition by private notice as well.

3. In the above Writ Petition what is challenged is the Notification and Code of Conduct dated 21t June 2024 issued by the Returning Officer of Respondent No.4 and all steps taken subsequent thereto.

4. To put it in a nutshell, it is the grievance of the Petitioners that the elections of Respondent No.4 are being conducted contrary to the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. To put it differently, the grievance of the Petitioners is that each district affiliated to Respondent No.4 (the State Association) has to send two of its members who would form part of the electoral college for voting in members of the said State Association. One of the requirements is that the members of the electoral college cannot hold office of the District Association for more than 8 years, or at the highest, even after the cooling-off period, for more than 12 years. According to the Petitioners, the members of Respondent No.5 (the District Association) nominated to be on the electoral college i.e. Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7, have held their office far in excess of 12 years and therefore are disqualified to be a part of the electoral college as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.P.Rao V/S Union of India & Ors. (the Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000974).

5. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.4 it is the case of the said Respondent that the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 has not been adopted by the State of Maharashtra and therefore the same would not apply. However, in answer to this argument it is pointed out to us that Respondent No.4 has in fact amended its bye-laws in terms of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of K.P.Rao (supra).

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that Respondent No