The court underscores the necessity for due process in administrative decisions affecting sports associations, allowing petitioners to respond to show-cause notices before dissolution.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner - Kerala State Tug of War Association (Association), impugns Ext.P12 order issued by the Tug of War Federation of India (Federation) on various grounds, primarily that it has been issued in a hasty manner and without adverting to any of the relevant and germane aspects.

2. Sri.R.Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, even when the “Federation” does not obtain any power to dissolve the “Association”, it has done so through Ext.P12; and has then gone ahead to deafÏliate them from membership, solely for the reason that they had not responded to Ext.P7 communication issued to them earlier. The learned counsel explained that the reasons which led to the “Association” in not being able to respond to Ext.P7, was indited in Ext.P10, wherein, a request was made to the “Federation” to grant them one more month for such purpose. He pointed out that, however, without adverting to the said request, Ext.P11 communication was issued by the “Federation”; and then they went on to issue Ext.P12 in a rather hasty manner, not only to deafÏliate his client, but to dissolve it, which is impermissble in law. He thus reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P12 be set aside.

3. Sri.Sumeet Shokeen learned counsel appearing for the third respondent - “Federation” submitted that, as evident from Ext.P11, even though the petitioner - “Association” was directed to offer explanation to Ext.P7 within the time frame fixed therein, they chose not to do so; but, then preferred Ext.P10, seeking further time, which was found to be untenable and solely for the purpose of protracting the issue. He added that, in any event, this writ petition is not maintainable because the person who is shown to be representing the petitioner - “Association” is not its elected Secretary and hence has no competence to represent it. He then explained that, contrary to the afore submissions of Sri.R.Rajith, Ext.P12 does not dissolve the “Association”, but only its Executive Committee, due to the non compliance of the National Sports Code, for which, his client has full competence under the applicable Rules and Regulations. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Smt.Latha Anand, appearing for 2^nd respondent -

Kerala Sports Council, however, afÏrmed that, as evident from Ext.P24, her client has accorded approval to the election of the person who is representing the petitioner; but submitted that her client is bound by Ext.P12 order issued by the “Federation”. She submitted that, therefore, her client will abide by any directions to be issued by this Court in this writ petition.

5. Sri.T.G.Sunil, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 - who are the members of the “Adhoc Committee” appointed by the “Federation”, pursuant to Ext.P12, argued that the affairs of the “Association” was done in such lackadaisical and cavalier manner, that the “Federation” had no other option but to deafÏliate them; and that this cannot be found to be, in any manner, in error. He asserted that the reasons stated in Ext.P12 speaks for themselves, particularly because, even though the “Association” was asked to reply to Ext.P7, which contains certain specific imputations, they refused to do so, and unnecessarily sought time, through Ext.P10, without any tenable reason. He also thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.

7. As regards the competence of Sri.Shan Muhammed who is shown to be representing the petitioner “Association”, I do not think that it will be necessary for this Court t