The court ruled that unilateral appointments by office bearers of a sports association violate governance rules, necessitating collective decision-making by the Apex Council.

ORDER :

(NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.)

Heard Sri P. Rajasripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri G. Aditya Goud, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Sports and Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N. Gangadhar, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Association.

2. Petitioners are members of Apex Council of Respondent No. 2 Association. They approached this court seeking the following relief:

"A. For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may pass an order, direction, writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the Appointments of Respondent No.7 to 16 by the Respondent No.3 to 6 as illegal and arbitrary and is in violation of Bye-Laws of the Respondent No.2 Association more specifically Rule 15(1), 15(2), 15(5), and 15(7) of the Memorandum of Association and Rule and Regulations and consequently set aside the appointments of Respondents No. 7 to 16 and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased direct the Respondents No.2 to 6 to provide financial disclosures by complying with Rule 7(5) (e) and provide the audited balance sheets and statements of accounts to all members of the Apex Council and to mandate the Respondents to respect and uphold the autonomy of the Cricket Committees under Rule 26 and refrain from interfering in their statutory functions.

C. It is also prayed to issue appropriate directions to restore collective governance by convening inclusive meetings, circulating minutes, providing regular updates, and implementing AGM decisions in accordance with the HCA's bye-laws in the interest of justice”.

3. Respondent No.2 is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act vide Registration Number 207/1961 and its object and purpose, in brief, is promoting and regulating cricket with transparency, accountability and integrity. The primary objectives include enhancing quality and standards of cricket through policies, coaching schemes, tournaments and infrastructure development.

It is the case of petitioners that they are members of the Apex Council of Respondent No.2 Association, elected in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations 2018 (herein after be referred to as ‘Rules and Regulations’). As per Rule 14 of the Bye-laws of the Association, the Apex Council comprises of Nine Councillors out of which five members are elected as Office Bearers by the Full Members of the Association and the other four members elected consist of: one by the Full Members of Respondent No. 2 Association, Two by the Players’ Association and One by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Telangana. Petitioners represent diverse stakeholders of HCA and are aggrieved by the arbitrary and unilateral actions of the Respondents, which undermines the collective decision-making process of the Apex Council and violates the Bye-Laws of the Association.

4. The gist of the grievances of Petitioners made in the writ affidavit is as under:

Respondents 3 to 6 failed in their statutory and fiduciary obligations by excluding the other Apex Council Members from the decision-making process and are running Respondent No.2 as personal business of Respondents 3 to 6 and in violation/non-compliance of Rules and Regulations - 2018, of Respondent No.2.

Respondents 3 to 6 failed to convene meetings of the Apex Council in accordance with the prescribed Rules. As per the Bye-laws of Respondent No. 2 Association, the Apex Council is mandated to meet at least once in every three months, with fourteen days' clear notice provided to all members along with the agenda.

Respondents 3 to 6 acted in blatant disregard of the rules and powers that govern the Apex Council. Petitioners, through multiple written communications, including e mails, have consistently highlighted breaches of