The decision reinforces recognition criteria under the Kerala Sports Act, emphasizing proper procedural adherence in appointing adhoc bodies within sports organizations.

JUDGMENT

Ext.P2 order dated 30.7.2013, by which the second respondent, who has duly declared the election of the office bearers of the petitioner, has refused to recognise the petitioner as a registered Sports Organisation on the ground that they did not comply with the direction in Circular No.G.O.(P) No.2/2012 dated 2.3.2012, as well as Ext.P4 letter dated 22.7.2013 issued by the third respondent to the second respondent which discloses that an adhoc committee consisting of respondents 5 to 9 was constituted making them a state representative of the third respondent are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner alleges that it is a recognised sports organisation defined under Section 2 (xii) of the WPC No.20842 of 2013 2 Sports Act, 2000 and the second respondent, who has duly declared the election of the office bearers of the petitioner, is refusing to recognise this registered sports organization and on the contrary has proceeded to recognise a totally unauthorised and illegal body as the registered sports organisation wherein respondents 5 to 9 are styled as adhoc committee members. The petitioner alleges that the stand of the second respondent in Ext.P2 is incorrect since the petitioner is already having affiliation of the third respondent and no orders of disaffiliation against the petitioner has been passed by the third respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 is illegal and unsustainable.

3. The petitioner has pointed out that earlier when it was realised by some of the members that the 4th respondent who has been holding the post of President of the petitioner for the last 12 years was trying to sabotage the election of the office bearers which otherwise was to be conducted in a WPC No.20842 of 2013 3 democratic manner, they approached this Court for a proper conduct of annual general body meeting with Writ Petition No.15632/2013. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.7.2013 in the said case, the second respondent declared the results which did not fully recognise the committee on the ground that it did not comply with the directions in the circular amendment vide G.O.(P) No.2/2012 dated 2.3.2012. Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter received from the second respondent by the petitioner. 4. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner came to know from the newspaper report dated 28.7.2013 that the third respondent had constituted an adhoc committee consisting of respondents 5 to 9 and made them a state representative of the third respondent and further enquiry revealed that the third respondent by Ext.P4 letter dated 22.7.2013 issued to the second respondent refers to certain irregularities in the petitioners' association and that they wanted to advise the then president to constitute an adhoc WPC No.20842 of 2013 4 committee and that fact had been intimated to the then president Sri.B.Rajan (4th respondent) vide letter No.HFI/401-404 dated 20.6.2013 and they have not received any communication from the 2nd respondent in that regard and that they, therefore, appointing respondents 5 to 9 as adhoc committee. It has been further directed that the second respondent should deal with the adhoc committee till the election of the Kerala Handball Association. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P4 is illegal and unsustainable. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a statement contending as follows:

The annual General body meeting of Kerala Handball Association held on 30.6.2013 as per the directions of this Court dated 15.7.2013 in WPC No.15632/2013 has already been approved by the Kerala State Sports Council by its proceedings dated 30.7.2013. But in the meantime, the 3rd respondent, the apex body to which the petitioner Association is WPC No.20842 of 2013 5 affiliated, has formed an Adhoc Committee, and had informed the council vide Ext.P4 letter.

It is also contended by the 2nd respondent that as per clause 55 of the Sport