Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
M/s Charminar Cricket Club – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18413 of 2024
Decided On : 12-09-2024
(A) Writ Petition – Article 226 – Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman – Directions regarding conduct of league matches – The petitioner, a registered society, challenged the legality of the 3rd respondent's letter dated 02.07.2024, which was found to be contrary to the Ethics Officer's order dated 14.06.2024 in Case No. 11 of 2024. The court granted interim stay on the league matches scheduled by the 3rd respondent, emphasizing adherence to the established procedures for fair team rankings and promotions. (Paras 1, 3, 12)
(B) Locus Standi – The petitioner, as an affiliated member of the 2nd respondent, was deemed to have the locus to file the Writ Petition, rejecting the counter-argument of the 2nd respondent. (Paras 5)
(C) Supervisory Committee – The court appointed a retired judge as a supervisory committee to ensure compliance with the established procedures for the upcoming cricket season. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case: The petitioner challenged the 3rd respondent's decision to not conduct playoff matches, which was contrary to the Ethics Officer's directive, alleging that the decision was arbitrary and detrimental to fair play. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court: The court found the actions of the 3rd respondent unsustainable and contrary to the recommendations of the Single Member Committee and the Ethics Officer's order. (Paras 12)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the 3rd respondent's actions and the adherence to the Ethics Officer's directives regarding team promotions and league conduct. (Paras 1, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the 3rd respondent's actions were against the established procedures and recommendations, emphasizing the importance of fair play and adherence to directives from the Ethics Officer. (Paras 12)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions for compliance with established procedures.
ORDER :
1. The present Writ Petition is filed by petitioner, which is a registered society and affiliated to the 2nd respondent Association aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing letter dated 02.07.2024 on the ground that issuance of the said letter is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the direction of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman dated 04.06.2024 in Case No. 11 of 2024 (wherein petitioner is one of the parties) and so also is against the bye-laws and Rules of the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Sports, Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N. Gangadhar, learned counsel for Respondent Hyderabad Cricket Association and Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Aditya Vyas, learned counsel for the impleaded 4th respondent.
3. Petitioner had taken out I.A. No 1 of 2024 to grant stay of the intending action of Respondents 2 and 3 for conducting League Matches pursuant to letter dated 02.07.2024, wherein this Court granted interim order dated 07.08.2024, after taking into consideration non-appearance of Respondents 2 and 3, operative portion of which is extracted hereunder:
List on 05.09.2024.
Prima facie, it appears, the decision taken in Letter 02.07.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent is contrary to the direction of the Ethic Officer and Ombudsman dated 14 06 2024 in Case No. 11 of 2024 and also against the bye-laws and Rules of the 2nd respondent Association. Hence, there shall be interim stay of intended action of Respondents 2 and 3 for conducting all league matches as per the team placements made by them pursuant to the decision made by the 3rd respondent in letter dated 02.07.2024, which are expected to be conducted from 08.07.2024.”
4. The basic grievance of petitioner is that the 3rd respondent being the governing body of the 2nd respondent had not followed the directions of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman to conduct play-offs and in ranking the teams in a fair and transparent manner, so that the composition and placement of the teams can be ethically achieved and there would be no scope for any grievance in the process of promotion and demotion which system and procedure was time-tested method based entirely on performance of the teams. As against the time-tested method, the 3rd respondent had allegedly passed resolution in its meeting on 30.06.2024 and vide letter dated 02.07.2024 addressed to the 2nd respondent had informed about its unanimous decision/resolution not to conduct playoff matches as it is not logically-possible as the league season is already delayed and play-off matches would delay the season. Petitioner had relied upon the order of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman vide order dated 14.06.2024 in Case No. 11/24.
5. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that petitioner approached this Court without any valid reason and grievance. In other words, the gist of the counter is that petitioner has no locus to file Writ Petition. This objection of the 2nd respondent is rejected for the reason that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner is admittedly an affiliated member of the 2nd respondent, thus has the locus to file the present Writ Petition. This Court is entertaining this Writ Petition under Article 226 taking into consideration the overall circumstances and the observations made by the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman in the order dated 14.06.2024 in Case No. 11 of 2024.
It is also the case of the 2nd respondent that in 2021, the then Apex Council/Committee promoted about 20 to 30 teams without any basis and petitioner was one among such teams which were promoted. The Single M
The court emphasized adherence to the Ethics Officer's directives for fair conduct of league matches, ruling against arbitrary decisions by governing bodies.
Writ petitions challenging orders of private club arbitrators are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when disputes are private and involve delay in asserting rights.
The President of the Association lacks authority to impose domicile criteria for team selection without Apex Council approval, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The court ruled that matters concerning the governance of the Hyderabad Cricket Association should be heard together with a related Civil Appeal to avoid conflicting interpretations of the BCCI's Con....
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
