V. Durga Prasad, vs Andhra Cricket Association,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2075 AP

                                     1




         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
                           AND
        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

                      Writ Appeal No.411 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

      The challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order dated 16.03.2022 in

W.P.No.27180/2021 passed by the learned single Judge confirming the

order dated 03.11.2021 in I.A.No.1/2021 in case No.5/2020 passed by the

learned Ethics Officer / learned Ombudsman imposing punishment on the

petitioner of relinquishment of his post of the Secretary of Andhra Cricket

Association.


2.    The facts shorn of redundant details which led to file the instant writ

appeal are that the 1st respondent is the Andhra Cricket Association (for

short, 'the ACA') which is a society registered under the Societies

Registration Act and pursuant to the judgment dated 09.08.2018 in Civil

Appeal No.4235/2014 & batch passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court,

Memorandum of Association & Rules and Regulations of the ACA were

framed in implementing the Justice Lodha Committee reforms as approved

by the Apex Court.

(a) While so, the 3rd respondent as Vice President of Krishna District

Cricket Association (for short, 'the KDCA') submitted a complaint dated

19.06.2020 to the Apex Council of ACA, wherein he stated that election to

the office bearers of KDCA were last conducted on 31.08.2016 for a term

of three years which came to an end by 31.08.2019 and as per the existing

byelaws of KDCA, the office bearers who completed their term of office

are also voters in the capacity of Ex-officer bearers but as per the byelaws

implemented by ACA as envisaged by the Lodha Committee they cannot

have voting right in the corresponding elections and therefore, in view of

the amended byelaws of ACA, the existing byelaws of KDCA have to be

replaced. He further stated in his complaint that though the term of office

of the existing office bearers was completed by 31.08.2019, no steps were

taken by the President and hence, the Apex Council, ACA may give

direction to KDCA to conduct smooth elections in accordance with the

amended byelaws of ACA for a term of three years i.e., for the period from

2020 to 2023. The said complaint was forwarded by ACA to the 2nd

respondent / learned Ombudsman.

(b) The said complaint was registered as case No.5/2020 and learned

Ombudsman proposed to consider the issue as to whether KDCA needs to

be directed to implement the Memorandum of Association and rules and

regulations adopted by ACA and conduct the next election of the office

bearers accordingly by giving opportunity to all the necessary parties

therein. Accordingly, while directing the KDCA and ACA to file their

counters, learned Ombudsman passed an interim order dated 19.07.2020

directing the KDCA that it shall not conduct any elections for its office

bearers until further orders.

(c) It should be noted that after receiving counters and hearing the

respondents, learned Ombudsman passed the final order in case No.5/2020

on 10.11.2020, wherein he directed the 1st respondent / KDCA to take

steps to implement necessary measures and reforms as approved by the

Supreme Court and adopted by the ACA within two months from the date

of serving a copy of the order and at the end of the said period the present

body which is being run under the present byelaws / rules would seize to

exist if the reforms are not implemented by the end of the said period, in

which case the ACA has to make necessary incharge arrangements which

shall be in force till the 1st respondent complies with the order. It was

further directed that the ACA to prepare draft byelaws / rules and

regulations for 1st respondent and send them for implementation. It was

also directed that ACA to take steps to implement the reforms in the entire

State of A.P. within three months ending with 10.02.2021.

(d) Be that as it may, the 3rd respondent herein, who was the Vice

President of KDCA filed a complaint dated 07.04.2021, wherein he alleged

that inspite of the orders in case No.5/2020 and previous interim orders,

the appellant herein who was the Secretary of ACA participated in

Executive Committee meeting of KDCA dated 11.11.2020, wherein the

election date of KDCA was fixed and further he actively assisted the

KDCA to conduct illegal elections on 06.12.2020 and he was physically

present with the Election Officer throughout when the nominations were

filed by five members and thus, he grossly violated the orders of the

learned Ombudsman as the elections were held to KDCA without making

amendments to byelaws as contemplated in the orders of the learned

Ombudsman. In the said complaint, he thus prayed learned Ombudsman

to take necessary action in the matter as the ACA had not taken any steps

in that regard.

(e) The above complaint was registered as I.A.No.1/2021 in case

No.5/2020 and after receiving the counters of the respondents and hearing

both parties, the learned Ombudsman having found that the evidence

produced before him manifested that the appellant herein in violation of

the orders in case No.5/2020 actively encouraged KDCA to conduct illegal

elections, for which one Satyanand was illegally appointed as election

officer and that the appellant was present throughout with every member

who filed nominations before elections and saw that the election was

conducted and thus violated the orders of the learned Ombudsman and his

denial of those facts was not correct and accordingly, passed punishment

against the appellant herein of relinquishment of his post as Secretary of

ACA with immediate effect.

(f) Aggrieved, the appellant herein filed W.P.No.27180/2021. A

learned single Judge having found no merits in the writ petition dismissed

the same on 16.03.2022.

Hence, the writ appeal.

3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant Sri Anup Koushik

Karavadi, and Sri N.Ravi Prasad and Smt. P.Akhila Naidu, counsel for the

respondents 1 and 3 respectively.

4. While fulminating the order of learned single Judge, learned counsel

for appellant argued that the appellant has not violated the orders of the

learned Ombudsman as the request placed by the KDCA dated 26.11.2020

was approved by five out of nine Apex Council members for the proposal

of KDCA to conduct the elections by complying with the Lodha

Committee reforms. He further argued that learned Ombudsman has no

jurisdiction or authority to pass the impugned orders as there was no

dispute between ACA and its members and no complaint was received by

ACA and forwarded to learned Ombudsman to take up the enquiry.

Hence, the entire procedure followed by the learned Ombudsman and his

orders are vitiated as they are against the byelaws.

5. Per contra, Sri N.Ravi Prasad, counsel for respondent No.1, would

argue that as against the orders passed by the learned Ombudsman, the

appellant being the Secretary of the ACA, instead of obeying the orders,

actively aided and abetted the conduction of elections of KDCA which is

borne out by record and since his acts are in utter violation of the spirit of

the Lodha Committee guidelines and orders of the learned Ombudsman, he

was rightly punished and learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the

writ petition.

6. The points for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ

appeal to allow?

7. Point: The main allegation against the appellant herein is that

inspite of the interim order and final order dated 10.11.2020 in case

No.5/2020 passed by the learned Ombudsman, the appellant being

Secretary of ACA actively participated in the election process of KDCA.

In Para 16 of the order, learned Ombudsman observed that the evidence of

PW1 and the documents marked and admission made by the 2nd respondent

showed that the appellant herein participated in the meeting as a special

invitee and then the election date was fixed as 06.12.2020 and one Sri

Satyanand was appointed as election officer and the appellant signed in the

attendance register and minutes book and during the course of filing of

nominations before the election officer, the appellant was present and on

the date of election i.e., 06.12.2020 five persons were unanimously

declared elected as office bearers and at that time also the appellant herein

had participated as special invitee and signed in the attendance book and

minutes book and thus the evidence of PW1 proved the circumstances and

the contents of the documents marked which established that the appellant

had actively aided and participated in the election process for the election

of the office bearers of Apex Council of KDCA. Learned Ombudsman

observed that the acts of the appellants herein cannot be taken as accidental

or innocent or unintentional attendance rather it was to be taken as done

deliberately with an object to aid successful completion of the election

process by illegal method. Learned Ombudsman further observed that the

appellant herein in one way admitted the allegations by saying that any

action done by him in the capacity of the Secretary of the ACA bonafidely

and that the elections were conducted in the line of objective of Lodha

Committee reforms. Learned Ombudsman further observed that the

aforesaid acts of the appellant herein are in utter violation and

disobedience of the orders dated 10.11.2021 and 05.12.2021 by which it

was prohibited to conduct election process and elections of KDCA. Inspite

of prohibited orders, the officials of KDCA invited the appellant being the

Secretary of ACA who participated as a special invitee in the illegal

election process and also in the election of KDCA and that has been done

with the audacity to violate the prohibitory orders. With these and other

observations, learned Ombudsman came to conclusion that the appellant

herein has deliberately flouted the orders of the learned Ombudsman and

accordingly, awarded the punishment of relinquishment of the

Secretaryship of ACA. Learned single Judge having found no merits

dismissed the writ petition.

8. We gave our anxious consideration to the impugned orders of

learned Ombudsman and also the learned single Judge. It must be said that

as rightly observed by learned Ombudsman there is a formidable evidence

to manifest that the appellant has actively participated throughout the

election process and the election of the KDCA inspite of prohibitory orders

issued by the learned Ombudsman were in force. Except stating that he

has done in good faith and five members of the Apex Council have

approved the proposal to conduct elections for KDCA, the appellant could

not justify his acts before the learned Ombudsman. He being the Secretary

of ACA cannot take excuse on the ruse that the majority members of the

Apex Council approved the election process. It is his duty to see that the

orders of the learned Ombudsman which were issued to follow the

guidelines of the Lodha Committee reforms, were implemented in letter

and spirit. However, he deliberately violated the order which is manifest

from the record. Therefore, he was rightly punished. His argument that

the learned Ombudsman has no jurisdiction or authority to take up and

enquire the complaint allegations does not hold substance for, learned

Ombudsman in Paras 30 & 31 of his order clarified that the enquiry can be

initiated in terms of Rule 45(1)(c) though the complaint was not routed

through Apex Council since under Rule 45(1)(c), the role of Apex Council

was just like a postman who has to receive and deliver the complaints and

except that it had no discretion to refuse or to receive the complaints and to

scrutinize and to close ultimately. Having regard to the observations of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the guidelines of the Lodha Committee

reforms which aimed at safeguarding the game of cricket and to refer the

disputes to the learned Ombudsman as an internal mechanism to settle the

disputes, the aforesaid observation of the learned Ombudsman can be

found to be in correct lines. Thus, at the outset, we do not find any merits

in the case of appellant and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

___________________________ B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J 19.04.2023 MVA