Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
District Cricket Association and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Cum Registrar Institution, Sawaimadhopur and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6523 of 2019
Decided On : 24-09-2019
For the Appellant :S.S. Hora, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General assisted by Darsh Pareek, Advocate, Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate assisted by Karan Tiberwal, Advocate and S.S. Raghav, Additional Advocate General.
The availability of an effective and efficacious alternative remedy, such as an appeal under a statute, may preclude the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
SPORTS ASSOCIATION - DISQUALIFICATION - RAJASTHAN SPORTS (REGISTRATION, RECOGNITION AND REGULATION OF ASSOCIATIONS) ACT, 2005 - SECTIONS 21, 22, 23, 24, 35 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION: 1. Section 21: Disaffiliation of Sports Associations. 2. Section 22: Grounds for Disqualification of Sports Associations. 3. Section 23: Inquiry into Disqualification. 4. Section 24: Disqualification and Consequences. 5. Section 35: Appeal against Disqualification Order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a District Cricket Association, challenged an order passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (Act of 2005), alleging that the order was passed in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme set out in Sections 22 to 24 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2005 against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. 2. The court observed that the statutory remedy of appeal was efficacious and provided an opportunity to the petitioners to raise their grievances, including any violation of principles of natural justice or illegality in the impugned order. 3. The court noted that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is discretionary and that it would not normally exercise its jurisdiction when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 24 of the Act of 2005. 2. Whether the statutory remedy of appeal was efficacious and provided an opportunity to the petitioners to raise their grievances. 3. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 35 of the Act of 2005 was an effective and efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners. 2. The court observed that the appeal process allowed the petitioners to challenge the impugned order, raise their grievances, and seek appropriate relief from the appellate authority. 3. The court noted that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is discretionary and that it would not normally exercise its jurisdiction when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, holding that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2005 and that the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available.
ORDER :
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies-cum-Registrar Institution, Sawai Madhopur exercising the power under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act of 2005").
2. The allegation of the petitioners pertains to passing of order under Section 24 of the Act of 2005 in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme set out under Section 22 to 24 of the Act of 2005. The petitioners have also alleged that the order dated 22.03.2019 in fact amounts to overreaching the various judicial orders passed by the competent courts.
3. The present writ petition is a second round of litigation. The petitioners were in receipt of a notice dated 25.02.2019 issued under Section 23 of the Act of 2005. The petitioners filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4858/2019 [District Cricket Association, Sawai Madhopur & Ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies-cum-Registrar Institution, Sawai Madhopur] challenging the notice dated 25.02.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1-Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies-cum-Registrar Institution, Sawai Madhopur.
4. This Court on 07.03.2019, after hearing the counsel for petitioners, refused to interfere in the writ petition and dismissed the same. The operative portion of the order of this Court is quoted hereunder:-
"This Court finds that if the Registrar on his own motion has sought certain information from the petitioners with respect to affiliation/constitution of the elected body and other information relating to registration of primary units as per Section of the Act of 2005 and further the information with regard to orders which have been passed by the different Courts, this Court cannot term the said notice to be wholly without jurisdiction or Registrar having no competence to issue such notice. The show cause-notice which has been given to the petitioners can always be issued for eliciting information, which has been sought, and only by issuance of notice under Section 23, it cannot be said that the Registrar or respondents are determined to disqualify the petitioners association.
This Court further finds that the dispute with regard to elections which have taken place in past is not the subject matter by which the Registrar has sought information or he intends to overturn the judgment which has been passed by the competent Court. The information which is sought by way of show cause-notice in no way affect rights of the petitioners at this juncture and as such the show cause-notice cannot be faulted on the ground that the Registrar has invoked power under Section 23 of the Act for conducting the inquiry.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court has laid down the law in the case of Rajasthan Tennis Association through its President Vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Societies & Ors. (supra), that Section 23 read with Rule 8 do not contemplate a roving and fishing inquiry to be held by the Registrar or his nominee, this Court finds that in the present case by issuing show cause-notice no opinion is formed and only information has been sought from the petitioners association with regard to certain elections which are said to be complained of.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Apex Court has not approved power of the executive authorities to nullify a judicial verdict, this Court finds that by issuing the notice to the petitioners, the Registrar has not formed any opinion or he has not flouted any order passed from time to time by different Courts. It goes without saying that the petitioners if have orders in their favour, passed by the competent Courts/authorities, they can always place the same before the Registrar who has issued the show cause-notice.
This Court does not find any force in the instant pe
