THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
&
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WA No.300 of 2021
JUDGMENT ::
This writ appeal is filed against the interim order passed in IA No.4 of 2021 in WP No.15310 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the order dated 04-07-2021 passed by the learned Ombudsman who set aside the resolution passed by five members of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) purportedly resolving to suspend the duly elected President and restraining the President from proceeding further in the affairs of the HCA has been suspended by way of an interim order. This writ appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.
Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that no reasons are given muchless any satisfaction recorded in passing the impugned order despite the fact that the issue involved various contentious issues and the interim order has an effect of allowing the writ petition itself, which itself is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the respondent- writ petitioner is not entitled to seek relief in issues pertain to appointment of Ombudsman, which involves questions of fact, examining of material facts, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and the only remedy is by of proceedings under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act before the civil Court. It is also stated that the appointments to the post of Ombudsman and Ethics Officer under the Byelaws of the HCA are contractual in nature and therefore recourse to public law remedy is impermissible and have to be redressed under common law remedy. It is stated that earlier 2 this Court in CRP No.117 of 2021, which was filed against the order passed in IA No.674 of2020 in PSROP No.17 of 2020 by the XXV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was allowed and the RSROP has been dismissed and the same has been challenged in the Supreme Court, but as on today, no interim order is granted against the very dismissal of the PRSROP No.17 of 2020 and all these aspects ought to have been considered by the learned single Judge before passing the interim order.
Sri S. Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) submits that under Byelaw 40 (1) of the HCA, there is a requirement of appointment of an Ombudsman and under Bylaw 39 (1) there is also a requirement of appointment of an Ethics Officer and in spite of being informed that a retired Chief Justice and a retired Judge of this Court are appointed as Ombudsman and Ethics Officer respectively, the Ombudsman appointed by the appellant chosen to issue show cause notices to the members who are against his decisions, though his candidature was rejected the Annual General Body meeting of the HCA. Learned counsel, however, fairly concedes that two groups are functioning in their own style nullifying the actions of the other group. Learned senior counsel does not dispute that the impugned order hardly reflect any reasons. He also submits that the Ombudsman has no power to suspend the members and it is only the Apex Council which has got the power to do so as per Bye-law 41 (c) of the Bye-laws After hearing both the learned senior counsel and taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the matter requires comprehensive hearing and consideration of all the contentious issues raised, including prima facie case, balance of 3 convenience and irreparable loss to grant or refuse to grant the interim order. The impugned interim order does not reflect prima facie reasons, therefore, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.
Learned senior counsel for the parties expressed readiness and pleaded for early hearing in view of the urgency involved in the matter, hence we request the learned single Judge to take up the matter for hearing on 23-08-2021 in view of the urgency pleaded in the matter. It is needles to observe that the League matches as to the game of Cricket by the different teams, as per the schedules fixed and approved earlier, shall go on. Pending disposal of the IAs before the learned single Judge, the Apex Council shall not take any decisions.
The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand disposed of. There shall no order as to costs.
____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J ____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER,J Dated: 17-08-2021 NRG 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY & THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WA No.300 of 2021 17-08-2021 NRG 5