The primary intention of the provisions was to increase representation and ensure that each taluka has at least one delegate on the Executive Committee, rather than limiting the number of office bearers per taluka.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against judgment dated 02nd June, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 15097/2021, upholding the order dated 14th December, 2021 passed by Appellate Authority of All-India Chess Federation, New Delhi ["AICF"].

Factual Background

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:

2.1. The Goa Chess Association ["GCA"] is a state-level sports federation, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, that holds affiliations with both the AICF and the Sports Authority of Goa. The GCA's governance is dictated by its Memorandum of Association [hereinafter, "MoA"] and its Rules and Regulations, both of which have been approved by the association's General Body.

2.2. The General Body, in its meeting held on 08th January, 2017, carried out a pivotal amendment in the constitution of GCA, thereby increasing the number of elected members of the Executive Committee from seven to twelve.

2.3. On 22nd July, 2021, the GCA notified elections for the Executive Committee. The list of approved nomination forms was published on 05th August, 2021, and after the closure of withdrawal window, the Presiding Officer ["PO"] released the list of candidates elected to the North and South Goa Taluka Associations on 10th August, 2021. At the same time, holding that each taluka can be represented by an individual candidate, the nomination forms of Respondents No. 1 to 4 were declared to be invalid and certain candidates from Barder, Tiswadi, Ponda and Salcete talukas were declared to be elected unopposed.

2.4. The aforesaid disqualification of candidature by the PO was challenged by Respondents No. 1 to 4 before the Ethics Commission of AICF, in accordance with AICF's Code of Ethics. The Commission, through their order signed on 19th October, 2021, rescinded PO's decision with a direction to carry out the voting process within two weeks from the date of receipt of said order. Against this order, the Appellants preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority of AICF, which was disallowed on 14th December, 2021, and decision of the Ethics Commission was affirmed.

2.5. Dissatisfied with Appellate Authority's decision, Appellants filed W.P.(C) 15097/2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. However, on 02nd June, 2023, the learned Single Judge ruled against the Appellants, thereby upholding Appellate Authority's decision [hereinafter, "impugned judgement"].

The Appellants' contentions

3. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Senior Counsel for Appellants, raised the following grounds of challenge:

3.1. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the enhancement in number of elected members to the Executive Committee, was intended to ensure that all twelve talukas are duly represented in the Committee.

3.2. Clause 13 of the amended MoA and Rule 42(i)(a) of the Rules and Regulations which entail the words "...one delegate representing each affiliated Taluka Association...", must be read ejusdem generis with the resolution that brought about the change in the constitution (dated 08th January, 2017). Thus, the extant rules also provide that only one delegate of an affiliated taluka shall occupy a post in the Executive Committee. The impugned judgement essentially nullifies the mandate behind introduction of the amendment incorporated in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 08th January, 2017 and also violates the mandate of Rule 42(i)(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the GCA.

3.3. The learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the PO's decision dated 10th August, 2021 is based on misconstruction of GCA's MoA and Rules and Regulations. His decision merely allowed the nomination forms of the candidates who faced no opposition and consequently, were elected unopposed. However, in the bargain, the nomination forms of other candidates from the same taluka came to be held invalid. Respondents No. 1 to 4 themselves have withdrawn their nominations for the