##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.799 of 2026

25.03.2026 Between:

M.Ram Charan …Petitioner

AND The State of Telangana,

Rept. by its Special Chief Secretary, Sports, Telangana State, Hyderabad & 4 others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in imposing a two-year ban upon the petitioner vide communication dated 29.12.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently to set aside the same and permit the petitioner to participate in cricketing activities, and to

pass such other orders as this Court deems fit and proper.

2. Heard Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Sports appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Abhaya Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for

2

respondent No.2 and Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an upcoming cricketer who has been actively participating in tournaments conducted under the aegis of respondent authorities and has demonstrated commendable

performance.

4. It is contended that the impugned action imposing a two- year ban is arbitrary and was taken on the alleged discrepancy

relating to the petitioner’s date of birth.

5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner possesses valid birth certificates and supporting records establishing his date of birth and had already furnished clarifications along with supporting documents to the respondents explaining the

discrepancies.

6. The discrepancy primarily arose due to inconsistent entries in certain records, particularly Aadhaar data, which according to the petitioner cannot be treated as conclusive proof of date of

3

birth.

7. The petitioner relies upon judicial precedent holding that Aadhaar card entries are not determinative proof of date of birth

and submits that reliance placed upon such entry is misplaced.

8. It is further submitted that pursuant to interim orders passed earlier by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to participate in tournaments, which demonstrates that the issue

requires proper examination rather than punitive action.

9. The petitioner’s parents have also sworn an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which multiple birth certificates came into existence and stating that steps have been initiated before competent authorities for correction/cancellation

of erroneous entries.

10. According to the petitioner, the ban imposed without proper adjudication and without considering his explanation violates principles of natural justice and adversely affects his sporting

career. Therefore, petitioner prays to allow this writ petition.

4

11. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 through the Chief Executive Officer of the Hyderabad Cricket Association opposing the writ petition contending that the challenge in this writ petition is to the two-year ban imposed based on information relating to discrepancies in the petitioner’s

date of birth records furnished to the association.

12. The petitioner himself relied upon multiple date of birth documents which contain patent inconsistencies, namely: Aadhaar Card reflecting one date of birth, GHMC Birth Certificate showing another date, Narsingi Municipality Birth Certificate recording a different date, and Tahsildar certificate reflecting yet

another entry.

13. According to the respondents, the petitioner suppressed material documents and failed to place all relevant records before this Court, thereby disentitling him to discretionary relief under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identifica