Telangana High Court
M. Ram Charan @ Ram Charan Markatta vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.799 of 2026
25.03.2026
Between:
M.Ram Charan
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rept. by its Special Chief Secretary, Sports,
Telangana State, Hyderabad & 4 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in imposing a two-year ban upon the petitioner vide communication dated 29.12.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently to set aside the same and permit the petitioner to participate in cricketing activities, and to pass such other orders as this Court deems fit and proper.
2. Heard Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Sports appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Abhaya Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for 2 respondent No.2 and Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an upcoming cricketer who has been actively participating in tournaments conducted under the aegis of respondent authorities and has demonstrated commendable performance.
4. It is contended that the impugned action imposing a two- year ban is arbitrary and was taken on the alleged discrepancy relating to the petitioner's date of birth.
5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner possesses valid birth certificates and supporting records establishing his date of birth and had already furnished clarifications along with supporting documents to the respondents explaining the discrepancies.
6. The discrepancy primarily arose due to inconsistent entries in certain records, particularly Aadhaar data, which according to the petitioner cannot be treated as conclusive proof of date of 3 birth.
7. The petitioner relies upon judicial precedent holding that Aadhaar card entries are not determinative proof of date of birth and submits that reliance placed upon such entry is misplaced.
8. It is further submitted that pursuant to interim orders passed earlier by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to participate in tournaments, which demonstrates that the issue requires proper examination rather than punitive action.
9. The petitioner's parents have also sworn an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which multiple birth certificates came into existence and stating that steps have been initiated before competent authorities for correction/cancellation of erroneous entries.
10. According to the petitioner, the ban imposed without proper adjudication and without considering his explanation violates principles of natural justice and adversely affects his sporting career. Therefore, petitioner prays to allow this writ petition. 4
11. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 through the Chief Executive Officer of the Hyderabad Cricket Association opposing the writ petition contending that the challenge in this writ petition is to the two-year ban imposed based on information relating to discrepancies in the petitioner's date of birth records furnished to the association.
12. The petitioner himself relied upon multiple date of birth documents which contain patent inconsistencies, namely:
Aadhaar Card reflecting one date of birth, GHMC Birth Certificate showing another date, Narsingi Municipality Birth Certificate recording a different date, and Tahsildar certificate reflecting yet another entry.
13. According to the respondents, the petitioner suppressed material documents and failed to place all relevant records before this Court, thereby disentitling him to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of 5 India is misconceived, as the said judgment merely holds that Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of date of birth and does not validate inconsistent birth certificates.
15. The respondents further submit that the petitioner's parents themselves filed an affidavit admitting discrepancies in the date of birth records and stating that corrective steps were being taken, thereby confirming unresolved inconsistencies. Unless such discrepancies are resolved before competent authorities, the respondents contend that the action imposing the ban cannot be faulted.
16. The respondents deny all allegations made in the writ affidavit except those specifically admitted and assert that the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
17. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the material placed on record, including the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner explaining the discrepancies relating to date of birth records. 6
18. The dispute between the parties primarily concerns the correctness of the petitioner's date of birth and the consequences flowing from alleged inconsistencies in official records. The petitioner asserts that the discrepancies arose due to inadvertent errors and are presently subject to rectification before competent authorities, whereas the respondents justify the impugned action on account of unresolved inconsistencies.
19. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court is of the view that the issue requires examination by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and governing regulations after duly considering the petitioner's explanation and supporting material.
20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to examine the case of the petitioner, including the affidavit filed by him and all supporting documents, strictly in accordance with law and applicable regulations. The respondents shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and consider his explanations regarding the discrepancies in date of birth records.
7
21. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of either party and all issues are left open for consideration by the competent authority.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Dated:25.03.2026 AQS