Yachting Association Of India vs Yachting Association Of Guntur ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4518 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                 &
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO


                  WRIT APPEAL No.934 of 2023

Yachting Association of India,
Room No.403, 4th Floor,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021,
rep.by its President and 3 others.                     ... Appellants

                              Versus

Yachting Association of Guntur District,
Rep.by its General Secretary,
Venkata Naga Sateesh,
S/o.M. Venkateswarlu,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o.404A, Siri Green Jewal,
Tadepalli, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh and 7 others.

                                                   ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Senior Counsel a/w Ms.Aishwarya Nagula

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. M. Suprabath Reddy

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Mr.G.Sai Narayana Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : ---

Counsel for Respondent No.7 : Mr.G.Tuhin Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.8 : Mr.Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu, Standing Counsel for SAAP HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.934 of 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt.:26.09.2023

(per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J) (oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against

the judgment, dated 22.08.2023, in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in

W.P.No.17528 of 2023.

2. The main grievance of the appellants is that by virtue of the

order impugned, the writ Court has restrained respondents 5 to 9 in

the writ petition from functioning and holding posts as Office

Bearers and Council Members of the Yachting Association of India.

The order further restrains the said respondents from utilising the

funds of the association until further orders.

3. The dispute which has been raised by the writ petitioner - 1st

respondent herein before the writ Court pertains to the constitution

of the Yachting Association of India which it is alleged is contrary to

the guidelines prescribed by the Union of India for recognition of

National Sports Federation. The stand of the petitioner before the

writ Court appears to be that the constitution of the Association is

in violation of guidelines 3.4, 3.9 and 3.10.

4. Counsel for the parties agreed that notice was issued in the

matter by the writ Court on 21.07.2023. The respondents appeared HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.934 of 2023

before the writ Court on 04.08.2023 and sought time to file reply.

The next date of hearing was fixed on 17.08.2023 when again time

was sought by the respondents in the writ petition for filing

counter. The counter, however, was not filed and the matter came

up again on 22.08.2023 and the order impugned came to be passed.

It is not denied by the learned counsel for the parties that

respondents 5 to 9 in the writ petition, some of whom are

appellants before us had been represented by their counsel on the

date when the order impugned came to be passed. Not only this, it

is also agreed that arguments were addressed by the respondents'

counsel to the maintainability of the writ petition along with other

grounds that were urged before the writ Court.

5. The main plea of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants is that by virtue of the order impugned, the entire

functioning of the Yatching Association of India has been brought to

a grinding halt. It is stated that a team which has been selected for

participation in the Asian Games currently being held in China has

already been deputed to China. The games, it is stated, are to be

conducted as per the schedule from 23.09.2023 till 08.10.2023. It

is stated that in case the order impugned was permitted to

continue, it would adversely impact the performance of the team as

also jeopardise its representation by officers duly deputed to assist HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.934 of 2023

the players at the said games. It is also stated that the presence of

the officers, some of whom are respondents 5 to 8, would be

necessary for enabling the contingent to participate effectively and

to represent the country in China which is getting severely

jeopardised by virtue of the order impugned. It was also urged

vehemently by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants that the writ petitioner had kept quiet in the matter

from 2019 when the body was constituted and came to be

challenged only as an afterthought as late as in the year 2023.

Finally, it was urged that the order impugned is a non speaking

order and it does not give any reasons as to why it was deemed

appropriate for the writ Court to stop the elected body from

functioning in its entirety.

6. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment of the

Apex Court rendered in Power Limited and Another vs Shyam Steel

Industries Limited.,1 wherein the Apex Court clearly observed that

a stray observation that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie

case without there being any discussion as to how a prima facie was

made out by the plaintiff could not be upheld. Reference to the order

impugned in the present case was made with a view to show that

(2023) 1 SCC 634:2022 SCC online SC 313 HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.934 of 2023

even in the said order besides a plain statement that the petitioner

had a prima facie case in its favour, nothing was said in the order

which would justify as to how the writ Court had found a prima

facie case in favour of the petitioner. Apart from this, not a murmur

appears to have been made as is stated by learned counsel for the

appellants, as regards the other tests of balance of convenience and

irreparable injury.

7. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand tried to justify

the order passed by the writ Court on merits. An effort was made to

draw the attention of the Court to the clauses which have been

mentioned herein above in the preceding paragraph to show that

the order passed by the writ Court was perfectly justified in the

facts and circumstances of the case. However, if we are to opine at

this stage on the merits of the case, there would not be much left for

the writ Court to decide after the objections are filed.

8. In our opinion, the order impugned is unsustainable in law

considering the well established principle of law with regard to

prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and

injury which are conspicuously missing in the present case in the

order impugned. Had it been a case of an ex parte order having

been passed by the writ Court and an order protecting the interest HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.934 of 2023

of the petitioner without hearing the other side, we would have

considered relegating the appellants to the forum below for filing

objections and seeking vacation of the order impugned. However, in

the present case what has convinced us is the fact that the order

impugned was passed after hearing the parties on 22.08.2023 and,

therefore, in our opinion, the same ought to have been a reasoned

order.

9. Be that as it may, we set aside the order impugned. The

appellants shall file objections positively in two weeks from today

with an advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner. In case any

rejoinder has to be filed to the objections, the petitioner shall do the

needful within one week thereafter.

Registry is directed to post W.P.No.17538 of 2023 before the

writ Court for consideration after four weeks.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS HCJ & RRR, J W.A. No.934 of 2023

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.A. No.934 of 2023

(per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J)

Dt:26.09.2023

RJS