Courts may decline to intervene in disputes perceived as smokescreens for settling grievances, and sports event organizers are responsible for ensuring safety measures.

JUDGMENT

CM Appl. 49431/2022 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA 662/2022 & CM Appls. 49429/2022, 49430/2022

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act assailing the Order dated 15.11.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 15739/2022 wherein the prayer of the Appellant herein seeking, inter alia, quashing of the sanction provided for the conduct of the Indian Racing League which is scheduled to be held from 19th November, 2022 to 11th December, 2022, in Hyderabad and Chennai.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:

a) It is stated that on 10.11.2018, Xtreme 1 Racing League Sanction and Commercial Rights Agreement was entered into between the Federation of Motor Sports Club of India (FMSCI), i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein, and M/s Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd. (RPPL), i.e. Respondent No.3.

b) It is stated that the Appellant herein, who is one of the Directors and majority shareholder of RPPL, was informed about the dates of the Indian Racing League (IRL) via Instagram posts and was allegedly kept in the dark about Board Meetings being convened by RPPL.

c) It is stated that numerous letters were sent by the Appellant herein to FMSCI noting his objections to the Board Meetings being convened by RPPL as well as the lack of adherence to safety norms by both RPPL and FMSCI along with the irregularities in the conduct of the IRL in contravention with the

d) It is stated the Appellant herein filed a writ petition before this Court alleging that the sanction granted to IRL is replete with infirmities and is not in consonance with the procedural norms of FMSCI, and that the same must be quashed.

e) The learned Single Judge vide Order dated 15.11.2018 in W.P.(C) 15739/2022 has refused to interfere in the IRL. Further, the learned Single Judge, while addressing the concerns raised by the writ petitioners regarding the safety aspects in respect of cars which are to participate in the event, directed Respondent No.2 to duly examine the said issues and take such measures as may be warranted. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant herein has approached this Court by way of an appeal.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant herein have vehemently argued as to why this Court must intervene in the conduct of the IRL. It has been submitted that the sanction that has been provided by FMSCI to RPPL for the organisation of IRL is an outcome of foul-play as it flouts numerous safety norms, and that the Appellant, who is a majority shareholder, has been kept in the dark with regard to the event. It has been stated that the President of FMSCI, at whose behest the Appellant accepted the proposal to join RPPL, is the father of one of the Directors of RPPL, and that RPPL has been consistently allowed to bypass various statutory approvals and permissions. It has further been stated that the Appellant has been kept out of the loop with regard to the conduct of the event as he had noticed irregularities in the functioning of RPPL and had attempted to bring the same to light.

4. Mr. Anil Soni, learned CGSC, submits that Union of India has given NOC to the event. He further states that the cars have been imported for the purpose of racing of which the Union of India is aware. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, submits that the calendar for the entire season was prepared in January, 2022 itself and from January itself the Appellant was aware of the event which was to be conducted in November, 2022. He further submits that these events are not decided overnight and preparations for the events commence much prior to the actual date of event. He submits that permissions are taken from the State Governments, Municipal Authorities and other authorities. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the dispute arose between the Appellant and Respondent No.4 for the reason that Respond