IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of the appointments and amendments to the MOA of the AKFI, leading to the direction for recovery of financial benefits earned by Respondent No. 5 as President of the AKFI.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J.

REVIEW PET. 10/2019 in W.P.(C) 4601/2013

1. This Review Petition, preferred by Respondent 5, seeks review of para 78 of our judgment dated 3 August 2018, which reads thus:

"78. Given the totally clandestine and surreptitious manner in which the provisions of the MOA were illegally amended, in order to enable Respondent No. 5 to contest for the post of President, we further direct that Respondent No. 5 render accounts of all financial benefits, which have enured to Respondent No. 5, as and in her capacity as President of the AKFI since the time of her appointment to the said post on 19th May, 2013 until date, and the same be recovered from her, forthwith."

2. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner submits that his client seeks review of the afore-extracted para 78 of our judgment to the extent it directs recovery to be made from Respondent 5.

3. Before we advert to the submissions of Mr. Dubey, a brief outline of the controversy would be necessary.

4. The petitioners are players who claim to have earned gold medals for the nation in the international Kabaddi arena. They instituted the present petition by way of a public interest litigation, challenging what they regarded as the hegemonic control exercised by Respondents 4 and 5 over the affairs of the Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India (AKFI) and its affairs since decades. Respondent 5 is the wife of Respondent 4. The petitioners' contention was that the Respondent 4 was elected as the President of AKFI in 1984 and continued to remain President of the AKFI without a single election being held till 19 May 2013. On that date, Respondent 4 ceased his reign as President of the AKFI and his wife, Respondent 5, who is a practicing gynecologist and a complete stranger to Kabaddi, took his place. She continued to remain President of the AKFI till the pronouncement of the judgment under review on 3 August 2018. Thus, the contention of the petitioners was that, from 1984 till 2018, Respondents 4 and 5 continued to hold absolute control over the AKFI as its President without any election being held and in complete violation of all democratic principles governing such an important Federation, as well as the clauses of the Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the AKFI.

5. The matter was heard at length by us, over several days. All parties, including Respondents 4 and 5, were represented. Learned Senior Counsel who appears today in the present Review Petition, in fact, argued on behalf of Respondents 3 to 5.

6. After considering all submissions made, we, by our detailed judgment dated 3 August 2018, found substance in the submissions of the petitioners. Paras 59 to 66 and 75 and 78 of our judgment under review may be reproduced thus:

"59. In the backdrop of the above noted legal requirements, we are, frankly, appalled at the manner in which every mandatory condition, and stipulation, was ignored, with impunity, by Respondent No. 4 and, vicariously, by Respondent No. 5 as well. Worse, we are informed that Respondent No. 6, the son of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, has been "elected" as President of the Rajasthan State Kabaddi Federation ("SKF"). There is wealth of merit in the submission, of the petitioners, that Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had, indeed, held the AKFI to ransom, and were treating it as their family enterprise, as if there were none else to further the sport of Kabaddi in the country.

60. Significantly despite our repeated queries, no information has been forthcoming regarding participation of either Respondent No. 4 or Respondent No.5 in the sport of Kabaddi, or for that matter, any game or sport.

61. Addressing, now, the 2013 amendment of the MOA of the AKFI. Significantly, this amendment was effected by the General Council, on 29th December, 2011, which meeting, in turn, was chaired by Respondent No. 4 himself. The provisions, in the amended MOA, with which the petitioners claim to be aggrieved, are Clauses 8.9, 15.2, 15.8 and 17.