ORDER:

The petitioner which is Men and Women Cricket Association of Guntur District prays for Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned order dated 05.12.2021 passed by 2nd respondent / learned Ombudsman in case No.2 of 2021 and quash the same being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction, authority or power and contrary to the rules and regulations of the Andhra Cricket Association i.e., 1st respondent herein and to pass such other orders.

2. The petitioner‟s case is thus:

(a) The 1st respondent is the Andhra Cricket Association (for short, „the ACA‟) which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. While so, pursuant to the judgment dated 09.08.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4235/2014 & batch passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, “Memorandum of Rules and Regulations of ACA” were framed with prospective effect.

(b) 1st respondent is Full member of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and it is fully funded by the BCCI. The „General Body‟ is the Supreme body of the 1st respondent. Rule 3 deals with membership and jurisdiction of the members. As per Rule 3(B)(7), Guntur (Men and Women Cricket Association of Guntur District) i.e., the petitioner is one of the full members of the ACA. The 3rd respondent i.e., Guntur District Cricket Association (GDCA) is not concerned with the 1st respondent as per the aforesaid bye- laws. That is why the name of GDCA is not mentioned in the list of „Full Members‟ of the ACA.

(c) The petitioner herein has not committed any defaults as contemplated in the rules and there are no disputes between the petitioner and ACA / 1st respondent. While so, the 2nd respondent is an authority appointed by the 1st respondent under clause 44 of its Bye-laws and regulations to provide an independent dispute resolution mechanism to adjudicate and handle disputes which are referred to under clause 45 of the Bye-laws and regulations. As per Rule 45(1)(a) of the rules and regulations, a dispute between or among the members and ACA are to be decided by the 2nd respondent. However, in the instant case, it is pertinent to note that admittedly there are no disputes between the 1st respondent and petitioner herein.

(d) While so, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent / Ombudsman with the following averments: The complainant M.Venkateswara Rao was the Secretary and M.S.P.V.Ramana Murthy was the member of GDCA / 3rd respondent herein. The 1st respondent issued a show cause notice to him i.e., M.Venkateswara Rao and M.S.P.V. Ramana Murthy alleging that they committed some irregularities and malfunctions relating to GDCA i.e., 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent suspended both of them. However, the 1st respondent has not conducted any enquiry as contemplated under law to take a final decision. Having suspended them, the 1st respondent has appointed an Adhoc Committee to oversee the corresponding cricket activities. After sometime, the 1st respondent has lifted the Adhoc Committee and appointed a new splinter group, consisting of five clubs of GDCA and registered them as Men and Women Cricket Association (the present writ petitioner). Though the aforesaid two persons were only suspended but not the GDCA itself, however, the 1st respondent recognized the Men and Women Cricket Association and inducted it as a „Full member‟ during the period of suspension of the aforesaid members. As per the old bye-laws, there was no provision for removal of the district unit. Those five groups were all the followers of Sri Ganga Raju, the then Secretary. All the aforesaid acts were done by 1st respondent because the complainant has questioned the election of D.V.Subba Rao, the President and Sri Ganga Raju, the Secretary of ACA / 1st respondent and filed S.O.P. No.645/2011.

Ultimately in the said complaint, the 3rd respondent prayed the

2nd respondent to remove the petitioner herein (2nd respondent in t