Telangana High Court
Neredimelli Deepshika vs The State Of Telangana on 10 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.2714 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in issuing the notice dated 27.01.2024 to the 3rd respondent wherein the 2nd respondent has banned the petitioner from participating in any of the sanctioned tournaments for a period of two years w.e.f. 26.01.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.
2. Heard Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner; and the learned Government Pleader for Sports for respondent No.1, and Mr. VankinaAllu for respondents 2 and 3.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments in the writ affidavit, is that the petitioner is a professional badminton player and participated in several tournaments sanctioned by the respondent authorities; that the 2nd respondent had earlier addressed a letter dated 22.04.2023 to the 3rd respondent herein seeking explanation alleging on two birth certificates of the petitioner BAI ID 2256 and further directing the 3rd respondent to seek explanation from the petitioner by treating the alleged two birth certificates as age fraud within 15 days; that the letter dated 22.04.2023 was not marked to the petitioner and a copy of 2 the same was forwarded through email to the petitioner by late Sri PaniRao, the then District Secretary of Hyderabad District Badminton Association; that the petitioner replied through her mother on 26.04.2023 to the 3rd respondent explaining true facts stating that the date of birth 09.06.2007 does not belong to the petitioner and it is fabricated document by some unknown persons; that along with the said reply, the petitioner enclosed necessary documents; that after submitting the reply dated 26.04.2023 by the petitioner to respondents 2 and 3, nothing was communicated to the petitioner by either respondents nor any enquiry was conducted before initiating punitive action against petitioner; that so to the surprise of petitioner on 11.09.2023 the 3rd respondent did not allow the petitioner to participate in YONEX SUNRISE 35th Junior National Badminton championship 2023 U-17 Girls Singles Sanctioned Tournament and the name of petitioner was missing from selected list; that the action of respondents was challenged before this Court by way of filing WP No.25622 of 2023 and an interim direction dated 13.09.2023 was given to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the said tournament; that the writ petition was disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023 as per time stipulated therein, and respondent No.2 shall conduct enquiry after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to th petitioner; that as respondent No.3 issued Show Cause notice dated 16.10.2023, the petitioner has submitted reply 3 dated 11.11.2023 to the Show Cause notice; that the respondents never conducted any enquiry nor have called the petitioner for personal hearing; that while the petitioner was selected and prepared for YONEX SUNRISE All India Senior Ranking Badminton Tournament 2024 to be conducted from 31.01.2024-06.02.2024 at Banagalore by 2nd respondent the petitioner got impugned notice dated 27.01.2024 issued by 2nd respondent to 3rd respondent wherein the 2nd respondent banned the petitioner from participating in any of the sanctioned tournaments for a period of two years w.e.f 26.01.2024; that the action of respondents in issuing impugned notice dated 27.01.2024 is arbitrary and in contravention of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the said order nor an enquiry was conducted despite this Court directing the respondents; that due to issuance of impugned order the career of the petitioner is at stake as she is not able to participate in tournament to be conducted during 31.01.2024-06.02.2024 at Bangalore.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, has drawn the attention of the Court ot paragraphs 4, 5.2, 7.1.1 relating to National Code Against Age Fraud In Sports, and also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohindhr Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi 1. 1 (1978) 1 SCC 405 4
5. A counter affidavit is filed by the General Secretary, Badminton Association of Telangana on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is that there exists two public record entries of date of birth of writ petitioner. Respondent No.2 sent a letter dated 22.04.2023 to respondent No.3 seeking explanation on birth records having BAI ID 22756, thereby directing respondent No.3 to seek explanation from petitioner and the said letter was enclosed with two online birth records dated 09.01.2008 and 09.06.2007; that the petitioner through response letter dated 23.04.2023 provided that tehbirth certificate with date of birth as 09.06.2007 does not belong to the petitioner and has been created by some unknown persons to defeat her career; that the petitioner in her response further provided 1st Standard School admission record which is a mandatorily required document could not be produced as the school attended by the petitioner i.e., Smart Techno School, Kukatpally, has shut down long ago; that as per the response received from the petitioner, respondent No.3 started enquiry into the matter and sent letters to the petitioner, Medical Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Suryapet, and Suryapet Municipality, who are all related to the matter to seek explanation regarding existence of two birth record entries of the petitioner; that the Medical Superintendent vide letter Rc.No.Slp/MRB/GGH-SRPT/2023 dated 06.09.2023 replied stating that the birth details in the name of Smt. NeredimelliHaritha, mother of Ms. NeredimalliDeepshikha were not found in their medical records on 5 either of the dates i.e., 09.06.2007 and 09.01.2008; that the Suryapet Municipality vide letter No.F2/1628/2023 dated 06.09.2023 replied stating that Smt. Shailaja w/o Ramesh (Child Gender Female) was appearing for registration No.1003/2007 dated 14.07.2007; that Smt. Bujji, w/o Sudhakar (Child Gender Male) was appearing for registration No.6069/2008 dated 04.04.2008; that Sri NeredimalliPradeep, father of petitioner applied for change of details in records by giving information on 06.08.2016 through Mee-Seva (Online) and later obtained the date of birth certificate after correction in the names of the father, mother, child and gender of the child against registration No.6069/2008; that in the light of information received through above mentioned letters from Medical Superintendent of Government General hospital, Suryapet and Suryapet Municipality, respondent No.3, prima facie found the response given by the petitioner to be suspicious and anticipated that the petitioner could be involved in an Age Fraud and thereby the petitioner's BAI ID was temporarily frozen pending further proceedings and the petitioner was prohibited from participating in YONEX Sunrise 35th sub-junior National Badminton Championships 2023; that aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed W.P.no.25622 of 2023 before this Court and obtained an interim order dated 13.09.2023 whereunder this Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to participate in YONEX Sunrise Sub-Junior National Badminton Championship 2023; that in pursuance of Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure of BAI (Age Related 6 Issues), respondent No.3 sent a Notice to Prove Innocence dated 16.10.2023; that the notice also highlighted the documents upon which respondent No.3 relied alleging the Age Fraud and further called upon the petitioner to furnish proof of innocence against the evidence within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of above notice; that subsequently in its final order dated 01.11.2023 this Court directed the petitioner to submit explanation to the Show Cause notice issued by respondent No.3, as per the time stipulated therein; that this Court further held that on receipt of such explanation, respondent No.3 shall conduct enquiry after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing duly intimating the date of hearing in advance; that the petitioner responded with reply notice dated 11.11.2023 stating that the documentary evidence received from the Government General Hospital, Suryapet and Suryapet Municipality are not reliable as the same were issued without seeking explanation from the petitioner; that the date of birth was given by the petitioner's parents themselves and denying the facts stated by Government authorities is very illogical and irrational on the part of petitioner's parents; that on 27.01.2024, the Age Fraud Committee conducted a meeting and after keeping all documentary evidence available against the petitioner, the Age Fraud Committee passed an order dated 26.01.2024 banning the petitioner for a period of two years according to the SOP guidelines of BAI from participating in any tournaments sanctioned by respondents 2 and 3; that aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2 dated 26.01.2024 the present writ petition 7 was filed before this Court; that soon after vakalat in the current petition was filed, respondent No.3 sent a mail to the petitioner's father on 27.02.2024 to attend Age verification committee meeting and from that day onwards the petitioner's father kept on postponing the Age verification committee meeting and finally the petitioner's mother attended the same on 21.03.2024. It is further stated in the counter that the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate dated 06.02.2024 produced by the petitioner in this writ petition is fabricated as the LFG Digi School was established in the year 2013 and the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate dated 06.02.2024 of the petitioner shows that she studied from June 2011 to April 2013 which is absolutely not possible; and that an enquiry was conducted by respondent No.3 regarding the veracity of Bonafide certificate, and a letter dated 09.02.2024 was issued by the Head Mistress of above mentioned school stating that the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate is FALSE and the same was issued upon the request of petitioner's parents and thereby the said certificate should be considered null and void; that an email date 27.02.2024 was sent to the father of petitioner asking him to be present on 28.02.2024 before Age Verification Committee members of respondent No.2 subsequent to which through a telephonic conversation it was informed by petitioner's father that the petitioner's examinations are going on and asked to reschedule the meeting; that subsequently another email dated 27.02.2024 was sent to the petitioner's father requesting for a convenient date to attend the meeting at the earliest in the next ten 8 days as the same had to be intimated to the members of Age Fraud Committee; that on 02.03.2024 the father of petitioner replied to the respondents email dated 27.02.2024 wherein he changed the stand stating that she had undergone some surgery and that some post- surgical complications developed and she was asked by the doctors to stay under observation for a few weeks and thereby they would not be able to travel and the reports dated 22.02.2024 were enclosed along with the email; that the reports dated 22.02.2024 show that the petitioner was admitted on 22.02.2024 and discharged on 23.02.2024 after administering IV fluids, IV antibiotics, analgesics, antacids and supportive medications and does not mention any surgery; that benefit of the doubt was given to the petitioner and a reply to the abovementioned email was sent on the same day requesting the father of petitioner to confirm the date of meeting between 10.03.2024 and 15.03.2024 as per their convenience; that an email was received from petitioner's father dated 11.03.2024 with an attachment informing that WP No.2714 dated 2024 has been scheduled for hearing on 13.03.2024 and accordingly the meeting was fixed for 21.03.2024; that in the meeting held on 21.03.2024 at the office of respondent No.2 in New Delhi, the mother of petitioner appeared before Age Fraud Committee and was asked to produce any further documents/ certificates in support of petitioner; that the mother of petitioner produced the same documents that are already with the committee; that the mother of petitioner was given an opportunity to provide justification for not 9 accepting the letters given by the office of medical superintendent Government Hospital, Suryapet dated 06.09.2023 and office of medical council dated 06.09.2023 dated 06.09.2023 and office of municipal council dated 06.09.2023 stating that the birth details (registration No.6059/2008) provided by the parents of petitioner actually belong to the mother of a male child; that in response to the above question, the mother of the petitioner had no explanation except saying that she did not have any idea how the concerned departments stated this and that it can be manipulated. With respect to BonafideandConduct Certificate produced by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter that the mother of petitioner in her defence said that she was informed by the head Mistress of the School that the School does not maintain the records for the classes Nursery, LKG and UKG and she has no idea how the Head Mistress issued the letter calling the certificate null and void; on questioning the mother of petitioner that when the school did not maintain any records for the above said classes, how did they issue this letter, the mother of petitioner responded that the school had 2 branches and that the name of the school was changed later; that the committee members were not satisfied with the justifications given by the mother of petitioner and thereby after due consideration of the documentary evidence by Government Authorities and the letter given by the Head Mistress, the members of the committee decided to give the mother of petitioner 15 days time for producing written signed letters from all departments i.e., Office of Medical Superintendent, Government 10 Hospital Suryapet; Office of Municipal Council, Suryapet, and Head Mistress of LFG Digi School stating that the documents given earlier by them to respondents 2 and 3 were false, failing which the decision of Age Verification Committee earlier would be construed as final; that the 15 days period was over by 05.04.2024 and the mother of petitioner failed to send any information to the Committee; that principles of natural justice also apply to all other players in that age group who were wronged by the actions of petitioner and lost their golden chance of achieving medals and encouragement that they rightly deserve; that the petitioner by committing age fraud occupied a dominant position her group and took away other players' chance to flourish for a very long period which loss cannot be repaired or made good to them in their lifetime; that respondent No.2 through Circular dated 06.06.2023 informed all the affiliated state associations abut one of its schemes namely Voluntary Age Rectification Scheme (VARS) for discrepancy in age records of registered players; that the players were given a chance to correct their date of birth within a specified window of 20 days starting from 06.06.2023 to 2.06.2023; that this scheme categorically reiterated the intention of respondent No.3 that players who do not avail themselves of this scheme and are later found guilty of age fraud will face severe penalties, including disqualification from BAI sanctioned tournaments, two year ban, FIR against parents and potential disciplinary actions; that the opportunity was given to everyone including the petitioner to make corrections but the same was not 11 utilized by the petitioner; that one misstep in the procedure by respondent No.2 and 3 should not be construed as violation of principles of natural justice which was immediately corrected; and the substantial facts and evidences should be taken into account which are blatant false hoods provided by the parents to the Age Fraud Committee with reckless attitude and to mislead the Court; that it is settled position of law that any person approaching the Court with unclean hands shall not be entertained; that the conduct of petitioner is blatant abuse of process of law.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Sports has drawn the attention of the Court to various material documents filed along with the counter affidavit and would submit that the enquiry conducted by the respondent authorities with respect to petitioner's age by verifying with the Medical Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Suryapet, and Suryapet Municipality did not corroborate the claim of the petitioner with regard to her age, and further the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate produced by the petitioner from LFG Digi School stating that she studied from 2011 to 2013 is absolutely false document as the school was established in the year 2013 and further as per the directions of this Court in WP No.25622 of 2023, the respondents have given the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passed the impugned order and therefore there is no violation of principle of 12 natural justice and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the respective rival submissions, and perusing the material on record, and also the Annexure 'D' of the National Code against Age Fraud in Sports, and the judgment relied on the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that the judgment in Mohindhr Singh Gill (1 supra)is not applicable to the present facts of the case inasmuch as in the present case, as the opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing and examining of documents presented by the petitioner was carried out by the respondent authorities before passing the impugned order. It is pertinent to note that in the WP No.25622 of 2023, this Court by order dated 01.11.2023 disposed of the writ petition by observing as under:
"6. In view of the same, since respondent No.2 has already issued notice for conducting enquiry to determine the age of the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, directs the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023 as per the time stipulated therein and on receipt of such explanation, respondent No.2 shall conduct enquiry, after affording her an opportunity of personal hearing duly intimating the date of hearing in advance to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."
8. It is to be further noted that pursuant to the above direction of this Court in WP No.25622 of 2023, the Badminton Association of India conducted Age Verification Committee Meeting on 21.03.2024 at 2:25 13 PM at BAI Office, New Delhi, which was attended by Mrs. Haritha, mother of the petitioner and it is recorded in the Minutes as under:
"One Bonafide Certificate of LKG & UKG of LFG digihighSchooldt. 06/02/2024 which has already been sent to the email ID of Badminton Association of Telangana on 07/02/2024, based on which, verification / enquiry was done by Badminton Association of Telangana. A letter of the Head mistress of the same school was handed over by Sh. Kanuri Vamsidhar, Treasurer (BAT) to Sh. Sanjay Mishra, ShriSandeepHeble read the letter in front of the committee members which stated that :The Bonafide and conduct Certificate stating that DeepshikaNeredimilli daughter of PradeepNeredimilli was a bonafide student of this school in class LKG to UKG from June 2011 to April 2013 is false and was issued under request of her parents. Hence the bonafide and conduct certificate issued on 06/02/2024 should be considered null and void." Mrs. Haritha in her defence said that she was informed by the Headmistress that the school does not maintain the records for the class Nursery, LKG & UKG and she has no idea on how the Headmisress issues this statement. Sh. SurinderMahajan questioned Mrs. Haritha that if the school do not have any records, then how did they issue this letter. Sh. Kanuri Vamsidhar also told the committee during the enquiry by the BAT, it was found that the said school was established in the year 2013 and is only meant for High School classes. Mrs. Hartha responded that the school had 2 branches and the name of the school was changed later.
Since the committee members were not satisfied with the explanation/justifications given by Mrs. Haritha, and the committee after due consideration of the official documents, issued by the Hospital and the Municipality, suryapet and the letter of the headmistress of the school, decided to give Mrs. Haritha a 15 days time for producing written signed letter from all the departments, i.e., Office of the Medical Superintendent, Government General hospital, Suryapet, Office of the Municipal Council, Suryapet and Headmistress of LFG digi High School stating that the documents given earlier by Badminton AssociationofTelangana / Badminton Association of India were false th latest by 5 April, 2024, failing which the decision already taken by the Age Verification Committee will be continued and final."14
9. A perusal of the Minutes of the Age Verification Committee of Badminton Association of India on 21.03.2024 would show that the mother of the petitioner attended the meeting in person, and she was confronted with regard to the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate produced in support of the age of petitioner from LFG digi High School and also the duration of study of the petitioner in LFG digi High School, and the explanation / justification regarding the age and also the said document as well as the duration of study of the petitioner in LFG digi High School in support of the age of petitioner, was not found satisfactory by the respondent authorities. It is to be noted that the crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that principles of natural justice have not been followed by the respondent authorities inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned order, however, in pursuance of the direction of this Court in W.P.No.25622 of 2023, dated 01.11.2023, the respondent authorities have convened an Age Verification Committee Meeting under the Badminton Association of India on 21.03.2024, and the mother of the petitioner attended the meeting and the Committee members questioned the mother of the petitioner with regard to the documents provided in support of petitioner's age and the explanation/justification given by the mother in support of the petitioner's age was not found satisfactory. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the 15 respondent authorities, and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 10th July, 2024 ksm