The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the provisions of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 and the arbitration clause in determining the maintainability of a writ petition challenging a sanction imposed by a sports federation.

1. The writ petition came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 19.04.2012.

2. The petitioner, who is a minor represented by his father and natural guardian, has filed the present writ petition challenging an order dated 25.11.2011 issued by the second respondent Rowing Federation of India represented by its Secretary General at Chennai, wherein and by which a sanction was imposed on her for a period of six months with immediate effect and that she was prohibited from participating in the events conducted under the aegis of the second respondent or its affiliates.

3. The said order came to be issued after a show cause notice was issued to her on 21.11.2011, to which the petitioner had sent a reply on 22.11.2011. The second respondent was not satisfied with the reply. Anticipating that the petitioner may move the court against the said order, the second respondent had filed a caveat before the original side of this court under Section 148-A and Order 52 of CPC. But, however, the petitioner chose to move the writ petition against the order of the second respondent.

4. When the writ petition came up on 01.12.2011, notice of motion was ordered. Pending notice of motion, an interim stay was granted for a period of four weeks. The stay order came to be extended from time to time, i.e., on 23.12.2011, 12.01.2012, 30.01.2012, 08.02.2012, 22.02.2012, 08.03.2012, 22.03.2012, 09.04.2012 and 26.04.2012.

5. On notice from this court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 11.01.2012. It was contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and for any dispute between the members of the Association who are affiliated to India Olympic Association, there is a court of Arbitration of Sports has been constituted. The Arbitral Tribunal being the Indian Court of Arbitration for Sports is consisting of Chairman and members who are retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The disputes will have to be resolved only by way of an arbitration. A memorandum of association of the society also provides for arbitration. The petitioner had also signed the letter of commitment on 14.2.2011 and 20.11.2011, under which it was specifically informed about the arbitration clause of Rowing Federation of India. Hence the petitioner is precluded and prohibited from raising any dispute about her non selection before this court. With reference to the disciplinary proceedings under which six months sanction has been imposed on her, the petitioner had already appealed to the Executive Counsel of the second respondent through her State Association and that the appeal was rejected. The Executive Council of the second respondent had ratified the suspension of six months imposed on her. Further it was also stated that the writ petition is not maintainable against the second and third respondents as they are not coming within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as well as they are not entrusted with any statutory duty by any enactment. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable.

6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, dated 30.01.2012. Further rejoinder was filed by the second respondent, dated Nil (March, 2012). An additional counter affidavit was also filed by the second respondent, stating that there is no infraction of any statutory provisions of law. The issue is purely an internal matter regarding administration of the association and the enforcement of discipline.

7. The petitioner filed a rejoinder additional affidavit, dated 18.01.2012. It was stated by the petitioner that the Rowing Federation of India is a national sports federation. Therefore, subject to the provisions of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, the National development code of India has been issued in furtherance of various steps and initiatives taken by the Government of India. It was also claimed that even though the national sports body is autonomous in nature and they