2015 Supreme(Del) 2566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & R.K. GAUBA, JJ.
TATPAL SINGH JAGGI AND ORS. - Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 2989/2013, C.M. NOS.5642, 14472/2013, 1393/2014, CRL.M.A. 4829/2014, C.M. NO.4980-81/2014 & 10440-10441/2014
Decided On : 31-08-2015

Headnote:

The High Court held that the exclusion of eminent sportspersons from the Selection Committee of the Puraskar was without any basis and directed the first Respondent to make appropriate provisions for the same in the Scheme of the Puraskar for 2016. The Petitioner’s challenge to the grant of the Puraskar for 2011 in the category of ‘Establishment and Management of sports academies of excellence’ has to succeed; the first three respondents are hereby directed to pass consequential orders, revoking the grant of Puraskar to the fifth Respondent, within four weeks from today.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners challenged the selection of Respondent No. 5 as the recipient of an award, i.e. Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puraskar (hereafter referred to as “Puraskar”) for the year 2011 and the constitution of the committee under the Scheme for the Puraskar subsequent to the amendment dated 01.03.2011, responsible for selection of the Puraskar awardees.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the decision to award the Puraskar – and the awarding of it subsequently is vitiated by non-application of mind. The material on record showed: (1) funding by way of substantial grants to the Squash Rackets Federation of India; (2) structured grants for specific purpose (training for Commonwealth Games and other expenses); (3) The land on which the SRFI facility was built belonged to the Tamil Nadu government; (4) There was no information regarding infrastructure funding (building, equipment, purchase, etc.) covering SRFI or the fifth Respondent’s role; (5) No information with respect to any routine expenditure of SRFI – i.e. maintenance, expenses, salary, coaching fee, electricity, etc, which was supposedly by the fifth Respondent; (6) The claims of fifth Respondent were never verified – for instance, whether he actually contributed Rs. 75 lakh annually, personally or through group companies and if so particulars regarding such entities and supportive documents. (7) The lack of any precision or clarity with respect to the funding and the expenditure defrayed to various entities, such as the Squash Rackets Federation of India, the Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Academy and the India Squash Association.

Issues: 1. Whether the exclusion of eminent sportspersons from the Selection Committee of the Puraskar was without any basis? 2. Whether the Petitioner’s challenge to the grant of the Puraskar for 2011 in the category of ‘Establishment and Management of sports academies of excellence’ has to succeed?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that every executive government, or agency of the government is obliged to, while exercising discretion, take into consideration only factors that are relevant and germane to the issue and avoid irrelevant factors. If relevant considerations are ignored or irrelevant considerations prevail - or irrelevant considerations enter the matrix of decision making process, the ultimate decision is questionable. (Ref Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, AIR 1987 SC 537 that "High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred.") 2. The Court held that the complete lack of reasons why the MYAS was of the opinion that the change proposed by it should exclude from the Selection Committee altogether the category of sportspersons- who dominated previous Selection Committees, just before the process began in this case, is arbitrary. While the executive is free to change its policy- given the need to optimize efficiencies and gain from past experience, yet there should be some rationale for the change. The reasons might not be in the form of an elaborate explanation; they are not to be in the form of a "speaking order" with detailed reasoning. Yet, change has to be preceded by exercise of informed choice and due application of mind.

Final Decision: The Court held that the exclusion of eminent sportspersons from the Selection Committee of the Puraskar was without any basis and directed the first Respondent to make appropriate provisions for the same in the Scheme of the Puraskar for 2016. The Petitioner’s challenge to the grant of the Puraskar for 2011 in the category of ‘Establishment and Management of sports academies of excellence’ has to succeed; the first three respondents are hereby directed to pass consequential orders, revoking the grant of Puraskar to the fifth Respondent, within four weeks from today.