A writ petition is generally not entertained when the underlying dispute is still pending before a competent authority, particularly when that authority's role is analogous to an arbitrator, making the proceedings non-amenable to writ jurisdiction at that stage.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed calling for the records of the Case No.42 of 2025 on the file of Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association and quash the same and consequently enable the petitioner to continue his services as employee of the HCA.

2. Heard Mr.Irfan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Sports for respondent No.1, Sri V.Rajender Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri P.Ravi Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

Perused the record.

3. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 13.08.2025 issued by the Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), whereby his salary was reduced to Rs.71,000 in addition to Rs.10,000 on a consultancy basis despite his existing salary being Rs.1,20,854 (gross) and Rs.1,11,375 (net). The action was based on a complaint filed by Respondent No.3, an HCA Accountant, alleging that the petitioner’s appointment dated 06.04.2022 was invalid as it lacked approval from the Apex Council and consultation with the CEO as required under Rule 23(2). It is stated that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order and that the complaint itself was not filed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 41(c) of the HCA Rules, 2018 . Despite this, the Ombudsman passed the order reducing the salary while granting time to the petitioner to file a reply. Hence, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said proceedings and complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed on record the proceedings dated 04.10.2025 in Case No.42 of 2025 issued by the Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), wherein it is stated that, despite a last opportunity having been granted to Respondent No.1 therein, i.e., the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), vide order dated 13.08.2025, no reply has been filed. Moreover, the said association has not been represented by anyone. It appears that Respondent No.1 has nothing to submit in respect of the present complaint, and the petitioner (Respondent No. 2 therein) has informed that the order dated 13.08.2025 has been challenged before this Court and is pending adjudication. It is further noted that the said order has not been stayed by this Court. Since the matter is sub-judice before this Court, the Ombudsman, without commenting on the merits of the case, has adjourned the matter sine die, granting liberty to the parties to seek revival in terms of the order to be passed by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the present writ petition is, in substance, an appeal disguised as one arising from the docket orders dated 01.05.2025 and 13.08.2025 in Case No.42 of 2025, passed by the Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. It is pertinent to note that the said Case No.42 of 2025 is still pending before the Ombudsman. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is stated that the decision rendered by the Ombudsman is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction as the role of Ombudsman is similar to that of an Arbitrator. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of Mohammed Azharuddin Vs. K. John Manoj ¹W.A.No.476 of 2021, order dated 17.08.2021, the role of the Ombudsman appointed under the byelaws of Hyderabad Cricket Association is similar to that of arbitrar appointed under the contract between private parties, and therefore, the decision rendered by the Ombudsman is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and in view of the fact t