Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Challengeability of Ombudsmen Orders under Article 226 - Main points and insights:
The maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 against orders passed by Ombudsmen depends on whether the order affects the petitioners' legal rights or service conditions. For instance, ["SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY B R v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"] states, since the petitioners are before this Court challenging the order of Ombudsmen, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. It emphasizes that if the order impacts rights or service conditions, a writ under Article 226 is permissible.
Several cases recognize that orders by statutory authorities or Ombudsmen can be challenged under Article 226 if they are not final arbitral awards or if they impact fundamental rights or legal entitlements. For example, ["THE COMERCIAL TAXES CRICKET CLUB vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA - Telangana"] notes, whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 would be maintainable against the Order passed by the Ombudsman... the powers of the High Court under Article 226 have no fetters. Similarly, ["2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.02.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.34103 - Madras"] confirms that orders affecting rights can be challenged, stating, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by assailing the Order passed by the Banking Ombudsmen.
Conversely, some judgments suggest that if the order resembles an arbitral award or is purely administrative, it may not be challengeable under Article 226. For example, ["THE COMERCIAL TAXES CRICKET CLUB vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA - Telangana"] mentions that an order by an Ombudsman of a Cricket Association was akin to an arbitral award, which ought to be challenged before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, indicating limitations on writ jurisdiction.
The scope of Article 226 also extends to cases where statutory remedies are exhausted or where the order affects service conditions or rights directly. ["SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY B R v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"] discusses that normally, when a statute provides statutory remedy and special forum for redressal of their grievance, this Court under Article 226 would not entertain the writ petition, but exceptions exist if the order impacts fundamental rights or service conditions.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The challengeability of an Ombudsmen's order under Article 226 hinges on the nature of the order and its impact on legal rights or service conditions. Orders affecting fundamental rights or entitlements are generally open to judicial review under Article 226, especially if they are not final arbitral awards or purely administrative.
The courts have clarified that while statutory remedies are available, they do not bar judicial review if the order impinges on constitutional rights or legal interests. For example, ["SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY B R v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"] supports that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable when the order affects service conditions.
However, if the order is akin to an arbitral award or purely administrative, courts may decline jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of the order's character and effect.
References:
In the realm of Indian law, disputes within associations or societies often lead members to seek judicial intervention. A common question arises: is the ombudsmen order of state association challengeable under article 226? Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights or legal rights, but its scope is limited when dealing with private entities. This post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from landmark judgments and statutory insights to clarify when such orders can be contested.
Whether you're a member of a sports association, cooperative society, or private club facing an ombudsman's decision, understanding writ jurisdiction is crucial. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India allows High Courts to issue writs like certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against bodies performing public functions or qualifying as 'State' under Article 12. However, private bodies' internal decisions typically fall outside this purview.
The main legal finding is clear: The order passed by an Ombudsman or Ethics Officer of a private association or society is generally not challengeable under Article 226 unless the association is deemed a State or instrumentality of State within Article 12, and the order involves a public law element. In essence, internal adjudicatory orders are private matters not amenable to writ review. Lt. Governor of Delhi VS V. K. Sodhi - 2007 5 Supreme 909
The threshold test revolves around Article 12, which defines 'State' to include government, Parliament, legislatures, and 'other authorities' under government control.
For private societies or clubs, courts have ruled they do not qualify. For instance, in Mohammed Azharuddin v. K. John Manoj, orders by Ethics Officer/Ombudsman in private member disputes were deemed akin to arbitration—purely private—and not subject to Article 226. Deep Industries Limited VS Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2277
Courts consistently hold that disputes among private members or internal association matters are private law issues.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) exemplifies nuanced rulings. Though not a 'State' under Article 12 Nawal Kishore Singh Son of Late Alakh Narain Singh vs State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 745, writs under Article 226 have been entertained due to its monopoly and public functions. In one case: BCCI may not be State under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Joyanta Maibangsa @ Joyanta Hojai R/o. Choto Narainpur Kachari VS Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 324
Similarly, internal Bihar Cricket Association (BCA) disputes were directed to BCCI's Ombudsman, affirming writ maintainability against BCCI despite non-State status. A writ was held maintainable, but internal remedies like the Ombudsman were prioritized. Nawal Kishore Singh Son of Late Alakh Narain Singh vs State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 745
This highlights: Even non-State bodies performing public duties (e.g., regulating national sports) may face writ scrutiny.
Contrast private associations with statutory ones. Under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, the Cooperative Ombudsman has limited jurisdiction.
In a key ruling, the Ombudsman lacked power over disputes under Section 69 (loans), setting aside its order via writ: The Cooperative Ombudsman cannot adjudicate disputes that are covered by specific sections of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO vs SRI CHANDRAMOHANAN Advocate -SRI N MUHAMMAD SAJU - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4058
The court emphasized: Ombudsmen are statutory creations with defined powers; excess jurisdiction invites Article 226 challenge. Ratio: The Ombudsman is a statutory creation with jurisdiction limited to the complaints specified in the Scheme. THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO vs SRI CHANDRAMOHANAN Advocate -SRI N MUHAMMAD SAJU - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4058
Rarely for private entities, but possible if:1. Association qualifies as 'State' via control, finances, or public functions. Om Prakash Saini VS DCM Ltd. - 2010 5 Supreme 7372. Order breaches natural justice or statutory limits (e.g., cooperatives). Gantasethy Rama Rao vs State of Odisha - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 45563. Public element involved, like in BCCI's regulatory role. Joyanta Maibangsa @ Joyanta Hojai R/o. Choto Narainpur Kachari VS Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 324
In Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India, writ interference was justified for procedural lapses. Conversely, Lok Adalat awards are challengeable only under Articles 226/227, not civil courts: The award of Lok Adalat is final and binding, challengeable only through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227. Surekha Tanaji Naik vs Tajani Balaso Naik - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 825
Insurance or Banking Ombudsmen orders may face similar scrutiny if statutory bounds exceeded, but private association ombudsmen rarely do. SRG Apparels Pvt Ltd vs The Ombudsmen
If deemed 'State', writs offer swift relief against arbitrary orders. St. Mary’s Education Society VS Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 848
Generally, an ombudsman's order from a private state association is not challengeable under Article 226 unless it qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 or involves public law. Courts prioritize internal remedies for private disputes, reserving writs for governmental excesses.
Key Takeaways:- Private orders = Civil remedies. Lt. Governor of Delhi VS V. K. Sodhi - 2007 5 Supreme 909- Public functions? Writ possible (e.g., BCCI). Joyanta Maibangsa @ Joyanta Hojai R/o. Choto Narainpur Kachari VS Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 324- Statutory limits breached? Challenge viable. THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO vs SRI CHANDRAMOHANAN Advocate -SRI N MUHAMMAD SAJU - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4058
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence—associations increasingly face scrutiny amid public interest. For tailored advice, engage legal experts.
References:- Lt. Governor of Delhi VS V. K. Sodhi - 2007 5 Supreme 909, Om Prakash Saini VS DCM Ltd. - 2010 5 Supreme 737, Deep Industries Limited VS Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2277, St. Mary’s Education Society VS Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 848, Joyanta Maibangsa @ Joyanta Hojai R/o. Choto Narainpur Kachari VS Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 324, Nawal Kishore Singh Son of Late Alakh Narain Singh vs State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 745, THE TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO vs SRI CHANDRAMOHANAN Advocate -SRI N MUHAMMAD SAJU - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4058, Gantasethy Rama Rao vs State of Odisha - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 4556, Surekha Tanaji Naik vs Tajani Balaso Naik - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 825
#Article226, #OmbudsmanOrder, #WritJurisdiction
Since the petitioners are before this Court challenging the order of Ombudsmen, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. 3. ... Under impugned order, the Ombudsmen at Annexure-E has recommended for recovery for a sum of Rs.87,922/- each from the petitioners. The appellate order confirms the said order passed by the Ombudsmen. 7. ... The above recovery order would definitel....
..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th ... Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsmen under the scheme. The Banking Ombudsmen rejected the claim of the petitioner. ... I therefore, see no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Banking Ombudsmen when it held the claim of the Bank. ... of the Banking Ombudsmen#HL_....
(2) A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private ... The legal principles regarding maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.Shobha vs. ....
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ... BCCI may not be State under Article 12 of the Constitution but is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 14. ... No order as to cost. ... Cricket Association of Bihar, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a clear distinction of a body which may not be strictly one within the meaning of Article#HL_END....
226 of the Constitution of India. ... Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation [(2015) 7 SCC 690] the Apex Court held that, neither the order of the High Court nor the act of ESI Corporation subjecting itself to the jurisdiction of ESI Court would confer jurisdiction upon ESI Court to determine the question ... 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 01.12.2014 of the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman, Thiruvananthapuram in Complaint No.462....
(2005) 4 SCC 649 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold that the BCCI cannot be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution and consequently the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable and the ... Subsequently in the case of BCCI vs CAB (supra), in answering the question framed by it as to whether the BCCI is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and if it is not whether it is amena....
(C) No.20178 of 2020 (Orissa), writ Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 can interfere with an order passed by the statutory authority, when it acts in a manner not recognized under law. ... State of Orissa, others and Deepak Kumar Panda Vrs. State of Orissa and others and Pratap Kumar Nayak Vrs. State of Orissa and others passed in W.P.(C) No.8774 & 9010 of 2019 and W.P. ... (IV) In a case between Maharashtra Chess Association Vrs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors....
Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the O R D E R petitioner was constrained to submit an application, seeking name transfer in order ... , Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsmen, span style
(s) for constitution of working committee, by taking control and management of the affairs for conducting elections of JKCA in line with order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Supreme Court and to declare that Respondent No. 4 has got no legal authority or right to act as ombudsmen to determine the representation ... (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge JAMMU 26.12.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : No ... Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association through its Member Brig....
(Order of the Court was made by M.Duraiswamy, J.) ... The Supreme Court in The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. ... 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the appeal remedy available to them. ... 4.The Banking Ombudsmen, 4.The Banking Ombudsmen, span style="font-family
1. This Revision is directed against an order dated 15 March 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jaysingpur, on an application (Exh.10) for rejection of the Misc. Civil Application No.87 of 2021 (main application) under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the premise that the main application was barred by law. 2. The background facts leading to the Revision Application can be summarized as under : The award of Lok Adalat is final and binding, challengeable only through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227, not in C....
Mukand Staff and Officers’ Association [ (2004) 10 SCC 460 ] reinforced that findings through evidence appreciation by inferior tribunals cannot be questioned in writ proceedings. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra [ AIR 1957 SC 264 ] clarified that a tribunal's factual decisions are challengeable under Article 226 only if completely unsupported by evidence. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao [ AIR 1963 SC 1723 ] it is stated that if some evidence supports a conclusion, the High Court should not second- guess that evidence in a writ peti....
Mukand Staff and Officers’ Association [(2004) 10 SCC 460] reinforced that findings through evidence appreciation by inferior tribunals cannot be questioned in writ proceedings. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra [AIR 1957 SC 264 = MANU/SC/0071/1956] clarified that a tribunal's factual decisions are challengeable under Article 226 only if completely unsupported by evidence. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. 15. In Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. [1963 SCC Online SC 24], it was noted that a finding of fact based on no evidence constitutes an ....
The provision of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act after the amendment in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act enables "any person aggrieved" to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Further as it is stated, admittedly the petitioner has moved Bank Ombudsmen, which again reflect that the petitioner made an approach to the Bank Ombudsmen and having failed has tried to invoke discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the present petition. Therefore, the present petition is filed after such order was served passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Septe....
So long as such an award remains challengeable under section 34 and, in the case at hand, as already indicated above, there can be no dispute that the award was challengeable under section 34, no application, under article 226, seeking to get set aside and quashed the award, can be maintained. Though these observations have been made in relation to interim orders against which the High Courts have been interfering, the same logic applies, with equal vigour, in a case, where final award has been made.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
