Kerala High Court
Sudheer S. S vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2025
WA No.687 of 2025 1
2025:KER:49525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 687 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN
WP(C) NO.7815 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SUDHEER S.S
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.SURENDRAN S,
ATHAM, TC 27/687, VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SHRI.PAUL BABY
SHRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
SMT.SWATHY A.P.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, NEAR
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 695001
WA No.687 of 2025 2
2025:KER:49525
3 A.M.K NIZAR
VICE PRESIDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
SPORTS COUNCIL, RESIDING AT T.C 20/1232,
KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
BY ADVS.
SMT.LATHA ANAND, R2
SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR, R3
SMT.AISWARYA AJAYAGHOSH
SMT.RIYA KOCHUMMAN
SMT.AARATHY NAIR S.R.
SMT.ARATHY A.R.
SRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.687 of 2025 3
2025:KER:49525
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M. J.
This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 02.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7815 of 2025. Appellant was the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. Respondents were the respondents therein.
2. Appellant is the President of the Sports Council of Thiruvananthapuram District. He had filed the Writ Petition aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the 2 nd and 1st respondents, respectively, removing the appellant/petitioner from the post of the President of Thiruvananthapuram District Sports Council. He contends that no show cause notice had been issued and no explanation had been called for before the issuance of the said orders which he terms as illegal and ultra vires the powers of the 1st respondent to issue. He thus filed the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i) call for the records leading to Exts.P1 and P2 orders and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;WA No.687 of 2025 4
2025:KER:49525
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing through an authorized representative, within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iii) dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language;
and
iv) grant such other and further reliefs as deemed by the Hon'ble Court fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case."
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, had disposed of the Writ Petition vide the impugned judgment with the following directions:
"In the above circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:
1. The petitioner's prayer to quash Exts.P1 and P2 orders is rejected.
2. The 1st respondent shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder within four weeks from the date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment.
3. The petitioner shall reply to the show cause notice WA No.687 of 2025 5 2025:KER:49525 within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt the show cause notice.
4. On the receipt of the reply, the duly constituted committee shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and then submit a report to the 1 st respondent.
5. On receipt of the above report, the 1st respondent shall form an opinion and finalise the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law."
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this Appeal.
5. Heard Sri.Thomas Abraham, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.S.Kannan, Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, Smt.Latha Anand, Advocate for the 2 nd respondent and Sri.Santhan V. Nair, Advocate for the 3rd respondent.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge erred in overlooking the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 orders are legally unsustainable. The learned Counsel contends that the post of President of the Sport Council, Thiruvananthapuram District, is an elected post and not a post that one holds during the pleasure of the 1 st or 2nd respondents, so as to enable them to order the removal of WA No.687 of 2025 6 2025:KER:49525 an incumbent occupying the said post by issuing orders like Exts.P1 and P2. The learned Counsel invites our attention to Section 9 (6) in Chapter III of the Kerala Sports Act, 2000, relating to District Sports Councils. It inter alia stipulates that every member of the District Sports Council other than ex- officio member shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, hold office until the next reconstitution of the District Sports Council. Thus an incumbent has a fixed tenure and cannot be ousted at the whims of the 1st respondent. The learned Counsel also invites our attention to Rule 4 of the Kerala State Sports Council Rules 2008, relating to removal of members from office which stipulates as follows:
Rule 4 : Removal of members from office. - Any person other than an ex-officio member of the council,
(a) insolvent persons,
(b) who has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment, (c ) mentally unstable,
(d) absent himself from three consecutive meetings of the council without the permission of the council.
(e) He abuses his position in the Council in such a manner as to cause the Government to believe that his continued presence in the Council would be prejudicial to the public interest.WA No.687 of 2025 7
2025:KER:49525 For reasons stated above, he may be removed from office by issuing an order by the Government.
No one can be removed without giving him an opportunity to offer his explanation.
7. Rule 29 of the Kerala Sports Rules, 2008, which relates to the removal of members of the District Sports Council and the resignation of the President, Vice-President and members provides that Rules 4 and 5 shall mutatis mutandis apply in the case of removal of District Council members and the resignation of President, Vice-President and members of the District Sports Council. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the purported reason stated for the removal of the appellant from his post would not attract the provision under Sub Rule (e) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Sports Rules. In the instant case, there was nothing to show that the purported reason that handball players were protesting against adverse remarks made by higher-ups regarding their 2nd place finish at the National Championship would attract Sub Rule (e) of Rule 4 to justify the removal of the appellant. It was also contended that the President of the 2nd respondent, who is stated to have prepared a report regarding the alleged incident and who had made the baseless allegations against the appellant, is the WA No.687 of 2025 8 2025:KER:49525 same person who has been designated to lead the Committee to enquire into the allegations mentioned in the aforementioned report. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the lack of fairness was writ large in the actions of the 1st and 2nd respondents. Over and above the same, the learned Counsel contends that there had been a total violation of principles of natural justice while issuing Exts. P1 and P2 orders in so far as the copy of the report dated 20.02.2025 prepared by the Kerala State Sports Council regarding the allegations against the appellant had not been served on him. Neither had he been afforded an opportunity of hearing before issuing Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The learned Counsel thus contended that the Single Judge had thus failed to notice the total illegality and arbitrariness in the removal of the appellant from the post of President vide Exts. P1 and P2 orders.
8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 made submissions in line with the counter affidavits filed by them. It was contended that the appellant had only been suspended from his official responsibilities, and had not been 'removed' from the post of President as alleged. Suspension is only a temporary disengagement and does not amount to 'removal'. The WA No.687 of 2025 9 2025:KER:49525 suspension had been made to facilitate the enquiry that was on the anvil against the appellant as per Ext. P2 Government Order. It does not amount to punishment and hence no prior notice is required to be given. Since it was essential to ensure fairness during the conduct of the enquiry, the appellant had to be kept under suspension; consequently, the 2nd respondent was constrained to put the Vice President of the Thiruvananthapuram Sports Council in the place of the appellant after suspending him. It is contended that the provisions of the Act and the Rules permit the Vice President to act on behalf of the President. It is further submitted that the term of the Executive Committee of the Thiruvananthapuram District Sports Council had already expired and presently, the Committee is continuing as a caretaker Committee till the next election. Therefore, the appellant is only a caretaker President, and he had no claim to any legal right to continue. As regards the non-compliance with the requirements of natural justice, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge had in the directions issued in the impugned judgment ordered that the 1st respondent shall issue a show cause notice to the appellant as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules within 4 weeks from the WA No.687 of 2025 10 2025:KER:49525 date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, and that the appellant has to be heard by the newly constituted Committee. The reply to the show cause to be submitted by the appellant has also been directed to be considered by such Committee. A decision has been directed to be taken to finalise the proceedings initiated against the appellant after such hearing. This, according to learned Counsel, satisfactorily meets the mandates of natural justice. Based on Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 it is contended that the power to appoint includes the power to suspend or dismiss. Hence, Exts. P1 and P2 have been validly issued, removing the appellant from the post of President. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 thus prayed that the Writ Appeal may be dismissed as devoid of merit.
9. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the respective contentions put forth. We note that though the relevant provision of the Act and the Rules reproduced above mandates that a person shall not be removed without allowing him to offer his explanation, no prior notice nor an opportunity of being heard had been afforded to the appellant before his removal vide Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Further, the appellant, being an appointee under Section 9(4) of the Kerala Sports WA No.687 of 2025 11 2025:KER:49525 Act, 2000, and an elected member, he could not have been removed/suspended temporarily or permanently that too without following the procedure envisaged in law. We find merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge had erred in concluding that the appellant has only been 'suspended' pending enquiry. Both Exts. P1 and P2 orders state that the appellant has to be removed/ kept away from his post, and an enquiry is to be conducted. In light of the provisions reproduced above, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have no power in law to remove the appellant as has been done vide Exts.P1 and P2 orders without hearing the appellant. No source for such a power to suspend the President pending inquiry has been pointed out to us under the Act or the Rules.
10. Now we come to the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment whereby the appellant has been directed to be issued with a show cause notice and thereafter to be afforded a hearing before the Committee constituted, is a satisfactory compliance of natural justice principles and nothing more is required. We are unable to accept the same. We find merit in the contention WA No.687 of 2025 12 2025:KER:49525 of the Counsel for the appellant that such a post-decisional compliance with natural justice after unilaterally removing the appellant from a post that he had been legally occupying does not constitute a valid compliance with the mandates of natural justice. Since the appellant was removed from the post by following an illegal procedure, any amount of hearing afforded to him thereafter would not meet the ends of justice. Moreover, as alleged by the appellant, an Enquiry Committee consisting of the very same person who had prepared a critical report on the appellant cannot be termed as independent or neutral. The contention put forth based on Section 16 of the General Clauses Act that power to appoint includes the power to suspend or dismiss, does not assist the case of the respondents in so far as the relevant provisions of the Sports Act, 2000 and the Rules thereunder, reproduced hereinabove, clearly govern the field, leaving no scope for importing the principles of the General Clauses Act. That the appellant was occupying an elected post of specified tenure and the 2 nd respondent had no power to remove him negatives the contention based on Section 16 of the General Clauses Act.
11. In view of the above discussion, the judgment dated 02.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7815 of WA No.687 of 2025 13 2025:KER:49525 2025 is found to be unsustainable in law and is set aside. Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the 2 nd and 1st respondents, respectively, are quashed. This would not, however, preclude the competent authorities from proceeding with inquiry, if any, against the appellant before a neutral and independent Committee as envisaged in law, strictly following the principles of natural justice.
The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm WA No.687 of 2025 14 2025:KER:49525 APPENDIX OF WA 687/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.A2/44/2025/SPORTS & YOUTH DEPARTMENT DATED 19/4/25 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8/5/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT HEREIN TO ANNEXURE A3 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.4.2025 NO. A2/44/2025-SYA ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS TRANSLATION