The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of rights conferred on Overseas Citizens of India under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the authority of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 in regulating participation in international sports events.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2559 of 2011 dated 24.06.2015 10.11.2016. )

P.B. Balaji, J

1. The writ petitioner, aggrieved by the order of Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2559 of 2011 dated 24.06.2015,has preferred the present writ appeal.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for deciding the writ appeal are as follows: 1. The appellant an Indian citizen by birth and he completed his entire schooling and education in India. Subsequently he became a citizen of the United States of America in the year 1996. The appellant registered himself as an Overseas Citizen of India under Section 7-A of Citizenship Act, 1955. The appellant further stated that he is a bridge player and that the 1st respondent being the Bridge Federation of India, having its Presidential seat at Chennai, with the objects of promoting and developing the sport of bridge in India, conducts national bridge tournaments and also selection trials for finalizing teams to represent the 1st respondent in International Bridge Competitions. The letter of the 1st respondent dated 23.12.2010 informed him that he would be entitled to play in national championships/tournaments only and he would not be eligible to participate in national selection trials conducted by the 1st respondent to select the teams to represent the 1st respondent internationally. Two circulars dated 26.12.2008 & 12.03.2009 have been referred in the said letter dated 23.12.2010 to non-suit the appellant. The appellant challenged the said letter dated 23.12.2010 on the grounds that Overseas Citizens of India are statutorily recognized by the Parliament and ought to be treated on par with NRIs in different fields including economic, financial and educational fields; the circulars referred by the 1st respondent would not apply to the appellant, the decision of the 1st respondent has infringed the appellant''s legal right and also defeats the statutory notification issued by the Central Government under Section 7-B(1)which was only to advance the main object and purpose of the Citizenship Act itself.

3. The writ petition was heard along with similar writ petitions and in and by a common order dated 24.06.2015, the Writ Court dismissed all the writ petitions. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant that was dismissed is the subject matter of this writ appeal.

4. The appellant has challenged the order of the Learned Single Judge on the grounds that the writ court has not appreciated the mandate of the Section 7-B of the Citizenship Act; the reliance placed on Article-9 of the Constitution of India would not apply to the appellant as his claim was only being an Overseas Citizen; the writ court failed to see that the appellant is entitled to all privileges that are available to a NRI; the circulars referred in the impugned letter were not required to be challenged and that the Writ Court failed to appreciate that the appellant was not seeking citizenship, but only a right based on nationality.

5. Pending the Writ Appeal, the appellant filed CMP.No.18499 of 2021, seeking to amend the prayer in the writ petition, in view of the subsequent amendment to the by-laws, effected by the 1st respondent. We have alrady heard the CMP and passed a separate order on 12.07.2023, dismissing the said amendment application as not maintainable. However, we have observed that the appellant if aggrieved by the amendment to the by-laws, would be at liberty to challenge the same, independently.

6. During the course of arguments advanced in the amendment application the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the original prayer in the writ petition would survive and still be sustainable, despite the amendment to the by-laws and therefore, we decided to hear the writ appeal on the original prayer sought for in the writ petition.

7. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.G.Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R.Associates, Counsel for t