J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

1. Heard Shri Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel representing the appellants, Ms. Neha Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Udit Dehiya, learned special panel counsel representing the respondent No.2 and have perused the records available before us on this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. This Intra-Court appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 10.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the W.P.(C) No. 3418 of 2025 instituted by the respondent No.1 has been allowed, and the Office Order under challenge therein dated 13.10.2023 has been quashed.

At this juncture itself, we may state that the Office Order dated 13.10.2023, that was under challenge in the proceedings of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, was passed by the appellant No.1 – President, Indian Olympic Association whereby an ad hoc Committee comprising of four members was appointed to manage the affairs of the respondent No.1 – Ski and Snowboard India, including selection of the athletes and making entries for participation of sportspersons in international events. The said ad hoc Committee was also mandated to conduct the elections of the executive committee of the respondent No.1.

3. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition by the impugned judgment and order has held that the respondent No. 1 is an

independent body registered as a society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and that the appellant did not have any jurisdiction or authority or power to replace the executive committee of the respondent No.1 by appointing an ad hoc committee to manage its affairs.

4. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has also observed that as a result of quashing of the Office Order dated 13.10.2023, the ad hoc Committee stood dissolved with immediate effect. The learned Single Judge has also appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the Returning Officer to draw up the list of eligible members and thereafter conduct the election of the respondent No.1, with a further direction that the exercise relating to conducting the election shall be concluded expeditiously and in not later than a period of 12 weeks.

5. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged by the appellants primarily on two counts – (a) Article 17.5 of the Rules and Regulations of the appellant permits appointment of an ad hoc Committee of the respondent No.1 and (b) the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for conducting the election of the respondent No.1 by the impugned order is contrary to the provisions contained in the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2025’) and the Rules made thereunder, namely National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2026’).

6. It has been argued by learned senior counsel for the appellant that Article 17.5 of the Rules and Regulations of the appellant – Indian Olympic Association vests ample power with the appellant to appoint an ad hoc Committee for managing the affairs of any sports federation and further that

the ad hoc Committee was appointed by the Office Order dated 13.10.2023 having regard to certain differences within the respondent No.1 and on the basis of various complaints received against it. Article 17.5 of the Rules and Regulations of the appellant is extracted herein below:

“17.5 Other Commissions/Committees

All required Commissions/Committees will be formed by the President to be ratified by the Executive Council or by the Annual / Special General Meeting.”

7. So far as the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that Article 17.5 of the Rules and Regulations of the appellant, vests power and authority with the appellant to appoint ad hoc Committee, we may observe that such argument is highly misconceived and is based on a complete misreading of the provisions contained in Articl