Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35441
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
P.HRISHIKESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA – Respondent
WA 2669 2015
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SMT.ASHA BABU, SRI.G.RENJITH, SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
The court upheld the principle that courts do not decide cases that are moot or where no practical relief can be granted.
Headnote:
Amendment - Sports Governance - Kerala Sports Act - Sections 3, 5, 6, 9 - The court examined the constitutionality of the amendments to the Kerala Sports Act by Act No. 1 of 2016, concluding that the amendments were challenged on grounds of being ultra vires, void, and inoperative, affecting the tenure of elected members.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of amendments to the Kerala Sports Act, claiming they were unconstitutional and sought to continue their tenure in various district sports councils despite the amendments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subject matter of the writ appeals had become infructuous as the arguments regarding the amendments were moot at this juncture.
Issues: Whether the amendments to the Kerala Sports Act were unconstitutional and whether the petitioners were entitled to continue serving in their respective councils.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the principle of mootness applies when the issues raised do not have any practical significance due to changed circumstances.
Final Decision: Writ appeals dismissed as infructuous.
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Before the writ court, in W. P. (C) No. 29635 of 2015, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- “(i) To declare that the amendment of Sections 3 , 5, 6 &
9 of Kerala Sports Act by Act No. 1 of 2016 and other Sections which are impugned in this Writ Petition is unconstitutional, void, ultra vires and inoperative and is liable to be struck down;
(ii) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue as elected members of the Malappuram District Sports Council and Kannur District Sports Council, till their normal tenure expires;
(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the petitioners as elected members of Malappuram District Sports Council and Kannur District Sports Council irrespective of issuance of Kerala Sports Amendment Act, 2015 (Act 1 of 2016).”
2. Before the writ court, in W. P. (C) No. 30689 of 2015, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- “i) To declare that the amendment of Sections 3 , 5, 6 & 9 of Kerala Sports Act by Act No. 1 of 2016 and other Sections which are impugned in this Writ Petition is unconstitutional, void, ultra vires and inoperative and is liable to be struck down.
ii) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue as elected members of the Idukki District Sports Council, Kasaragod District Sports Council and Palakkad District Sports Council, till their normal tenure expires.
iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the petitioners as elected members of Malappuram District Sports Council and Kannur District Sports Council irrespective of issuance of Kerala Sports Amendment Act, 2015 (Act 1 of 2016).
iv) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the petitioners as elected members of the Idukki District Sports Council, Kasaragod District Sports Council and Palakkad District Sports Council and also the 2nd and 4th petitioners as elected members of the Kerala State Sports Council representing the Kasaragod District Sports Council and Palakkad District Sports Council respectively irrespective of the issuance of Ordinance No. 12 of 2015.”
3. Today, when the writ appeals came up for hearing, Mr. S. M.
Prasanth, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the subject matter of the writ appeals has become infructuous.
Placing on record the above submission, instant writ appeals are dismissed as infructuous.
