Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, NEW DELHI - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 17745 Of 1999
Decided On : 09/14/1999
REVIEW PETITION - U. P. OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION - ARBITRATION - JURISDICTION - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD - MAINTAINABILITY: 1. The U. P. Olympic Association (UPOA), being a member of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), has voluntarily surrendered its right to approach the Court and is bound by the arbitration proceedings under Rule XIX of the IOA Rules and Regulations. 2. The order passed in the writ petition, which is sought to be reviewed/recalled, was not ex parte as the UPOA was duly represented by its General Secretary, who had the authority to represent the association in the legal proceedings. 3. The Court has the power to modulate and carve out the relief, as may be necessary, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and such relief may be culled out from the general prayer made in the writ petition. 4. A review petition can only be entertained on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such error, which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn looking on the point. 5. The review petition lacks substance and merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The U. P. Olympic Association (UPOA) filed an application for review/recall of an order passed by the Court allowing a writ petition filed by Anandeshwar Pandey, the General Secretary of UPOA, and others. The applicant contended that the order was passed without impleading the proper party, that the Court sitting singly could not grant a writ of mandamus, and that the order was obtained by misrepresenting and concealing the facts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the UPOA was duly represented in the writ petition by its General Secretary, who had the authority to represent the association in the legal proceedings. The Court also found that the order passed in the writ petition was not ex parte and that there was no error apparent on the face of record. The Court further held that the review petition lacked substance and merits and was accordingly dismissed.
Issues: 1. Whether the UPOA was properly represented in the writ petition. 2. Whether the Court sitting singly could grant a writ of mandamus. 3. Whether the order passed in the writ petition was obtained by misrepresenting and concealing the facts. 4. Whether the review petition is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The UPOA, being a member of the IOA, has voluntarily surrendered its right to approach the Court and is bound by the arbitration proceedings under Rule XIX of the IOA Rules and Regulations. 2. The Court has the power to modulate and carve out the relief, as may be necessary, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and such relief may be culled out from the general prayer made in the writ petition. 3. A review petition can only be entertained on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such error, which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn looking on the point.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE present application on behalf of the U. P. Olympic Association which is a registered society, has been filed through Sri Lokpati Tripathi for review/recall of the order dated 5. 5. 1999 whereby Civil Misc. Writ No. 17745 of 1999 was allowed by this Court. It is prayed that an opportunity may be afforded to the applicant to oppose and contest the writ petition aforesaid.
( 2 ) SHORN of all superfluities and technicalities, the present application for review/recall has been moved primarily on the following grounds :
(1) that the writ petition aforesaid was decided to the serious detriment and against the interest of the applicant, which was not represented at all though it was impteaded as petitioner No. 2 by an unauthorised person, and, therefore, the decision, howsoever lengthy and elaborate it may be, it is In effect ex parte, and, therefore, cannot be sustained against the applicant ; (2) that the order passed by this Court which is In the form of mandamus could not be granted as it was cognizable only by a Division Bench and this Court sitting singly could not enlarge the scope of the suit by granting the relief which was not claimed ; (3) that the writ petition was filed by misrepresenting and concealing the material facts and, therefore, the Court was misled In allowing the writ petition by order dated 5. 5. 1999; (4) that the applicant--U. P. Olympic Association is an independent registered society and the indian Olympic Association which Is a distinct legal entity, cannot control the affairs of the U. P. Olympic Association and that the parties could not enter into any agreement whereby the jurisdiction of the appropriate competent court could be ousted ; and the last but not the least ; (5) that the order dated 5. 5. 1999 which is sought to be recalled suffers from glaring errors apparent on the face of record.
( 3 ) HEARD Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Razauddln respondent No. 3. S/sri Ajit Kumar and Girdhar Gopal on behalf of the present applicant : U. P. Olympic association through Sri Lokpati Tripathi as well as Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh for the original three petitioners, at considerable length and waded through the all pervasive factual and legal grounds, which have been taken in the review/recall application, loaded with plethora of decisions in support of each and every point whether material or Immaterial.
( 4 ) THE core question, which surfaces for determination on the basis of which the parties would primarily swim or sink is whether, in fact, the present applicant--U. P. Olympic Association was properly represented by an authorised person or not.
( 5 ) BEFORE taking up the various allegations made in the application for review/recall, it would be proper to analyse the powers and authority of the Indian Olympic Association (for short ioa)vis-a-vis U. P. Olympic Association (for short upoa ). Admittedly, IOA is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has Its own Constitution. One of the objects of the IOA is to admit the members of the State Olympic Associations and National Sports, Federations, which shall be required to submit their annual reports and audited statement of accounts to the IOA for information (Clause III. 15 ). The Rules and Regulations of the IOA in Clause (iii) provide for the membership of the Association which is open to Olympic Associations of States, as well as centrally Administered Union Territories. The various Associations. Federations and State olympic Associations, which become the members of the IOA may be disaffiliated/de-recognized and suspended, as Is contemplated in Clause XXV and under Clause xxvi an individual or a group of Individuals from the National Sports Federation/ association/state Olympic Associations may be expelled according to the procedures prescribed. In the list of the members appended with the Rules of IOA, the UPOA is found at SI. No. 20. Though the UPOA is an Independent registered body,
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
