Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Andhra Cricket Association vs Rafi Ahmad Kidwai on 12 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.33002 of 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
05. 12.01.2024 NV,J
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the present impugned order passed by the
Hon'ble Ombudsman dated 27.06.2023 in Case
No.16 of 2023 is without any authority or
jurisdiction and liable to be suspended.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble
Ombudsman pursuant to a complaint filed under
Rule 45(i)(a) of the Andhra Cricket Association
byelaws(hereinafter referred as "the ACA
byelaws") by an applicant, who is a former
Andhra Ranji Trophy player which was numbered
as Case No.16 of 2023 in which he prayed to
grant membership to all the former Andhra Ranji
players with voting rights at petitioner's
Association and to end the disparity of only
executive body to vote in State Association /
petitioner's Association.
NV,J
W.P.No.33002 of 2023
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the order passed the Hon'ble
Ombudsman dated 27.06.2023 is without
jurisdiction and authority, moreover, contrary to
the byelaws of the Association and also to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Board of Control for Cricket vs.
Cricket Association of Bihar and others1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that after submission of
recommendations by Hon'ble Justice Lodha
Committee to make reforms in the administration
of the Board of Control for Cricket in India
(hereinafter referred as "the BCCI") and its
member State Associations, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court appointed a Committee of Administrators
to oversee the implementation of Justice Lodha
Committee reforms in BCCI as well its member
State units / petitioner's Association. The said
Committee of Administration never directed to
include all the former Ranji players in their
respective State Association. Finally, the
Committee of Administrators framed guidelines
1
(2016) 8 SCC 535
NV,J
W.P.No.33002 of 2023
3
for modifying of BCCI and State Associations
byelaws in accordance with the Lodha Committee
reforms. The said guidelines were accepted by
the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated
09.08.2018. In view of the recommendations /
guidelines of the Committee of Administrators,
the claim of the petitioner as well as directions
issued by the Hon'ble Ombudsman is contrary to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He
further submits that the Hon'ble Ombudsman
passed an order directing the petitioner's
association for effecting necessary amendments
to the Rule 3 and 49 of the ACA byelaws and also
restrained the petitioner's association from
holding any general body meetings till completion
of whole process as necessary within period of six
months, is nothing but taking away the legislative
competency of the petitioner's association which
is without jurisdiction and authority on part of
the Hon'ble Ombudsman.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there is no representation by any one of the
former Ranji Trophy players for seeking
membership except Respondent No.1 herein who
NV,J
sought for full membership / membership with
voting Rights in the petitioner's Association on
his behalf and all other players. As on today,
Respondent No.2 who is a complainant in the
Case No.16 of 2023 is not the member of the
petitioner's association as defined under Rule 3 of
the ACA byelaws. Therefore, any dispute / claim
raised by him cannot be entertained by the
Hon'ble Ombudsman under Rule 45 of the ACA
byelaws. As such the Respondent No.2
/complainant has no locus to make such
complaint before the Hon'ble Ombudsman and in
turn it would have been rejected.
Admittedly, the byelaws of the petitioner's
Association approved on 27.09.2019. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court specifically held that the
amendments to the byelaws cannot be carried
out without its prior leave. As such, the question
of amending Rule (3a)(ii)(E), thereby, granting
membership to all the former Ranji players does
not arise and same is not within the ambit of the
Hon'ble Ombudsman.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the status report of Committee of
NV,J
Administrators is only a recommendatory and not
mandatory. He contends that in respect of the
contention of the learned counsel for the
Respondents that this Court has no jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
entertain the present writ petition in lieu of
statutory alternative remedy is available under
Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies
Registration Act, 2001 is contrary to the ratio
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Board
of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket
Association of Bihar and others2 wherein it is
held as follows:
24. Paragraphs 45.2 and 45.3 of the earlier
judgment of this Court dated 9 August 2018
reported in (2018) 9 SCC 624 contains the
following directions:
"45.2. Upon the registration of the said
Constitution of BCCI, each of the members
shall undertake registration of their
respective Constitutions on similar lines
within a period of 30 days thereafter. A
compliance certificate must be furnished to
the CoA, which shall file a status report
before this Court with reference to the
compliance undertaken by the State
2022 (13) Scale 452 : 2022 INSC 963
NV,J
Associations; and
45.3. In the event that any State
Association does not undertake compliance
with the above said directions, the
directions contained in the orders of this
Court dated 07.10.2016 (BCCI v. Cricket
Assn. of Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC 23) and
21.10.2016 [BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of
Bihar, (2016) 10 SCC 231] shall revive."
Learned counsel for the petitioner also
relied upon the ratio laid down by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature,
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Mohammed Azharuddin vs. Dr. G.Vivekanand
and others3 wherein it is held as follows:
81. It is submitted, on behalf of the appellants
and others, that the Learned Single Judge had
failed to consider whether the extra- ordinary
jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, could be invoked
when the first respondent- writ petitioner had
the remedy of questioning the order of the
Learned Ombudsman before the competent
Court under Section 23 of the Telangana
Societies Act, 2001; and a writ of certiorari
cannot be sought as the respondent-writ
petitioner has an effective alternative remedy
to question the order of the Learned
Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer dated
2018 (5) ALD 51 (DB)
NV,J
08.03.2018.
82. With regards the contention, urged on
behalf of the appellant that the respondent
writ petitioner should have been relegated to
his remedy of approaching the competent Civil
Court under the Telangana Societies Act, it
must be borne in mind that there is no rule,
with regard to certiorari as there is with
mandamus, that it will lie only where there is
no other equally effective remedy. Provided the
requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie
although a right of appeal has been conferred
by statute. The fact that the aggrieved party
has another adequate remedy may be taken
into consideration by the Superior Court in
arriving at a conclusion as to whether it
should, in the exercise of its discretion, issue a
writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings, and
ordinarily the Superior Court will decline to
interfere until the aggrieved party has
exhausted his other statutory remedies, if any.
But this rule, requiring exhaustion of statutory
remedies before the writ is granted, is a rule of
policy, convenience and discretion rather than
a rule of law, and instances are numerous
where a writ of certiorari has been issued
inspite of the fact that the aggrieved party had
other adequate legal remedies. (King v.
Postmaster General Ex prate Carmichael ; Rex
v. Wandsworth Justices Ex prate Read ;
Halsburys Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11,
p.130; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh ; Khurshed
NV,J
Modi v. Rent Controller, Bombay ; Assistant
Collector of Customs v. Soorajmull Nagarmul,
AIR 1952 Cal.656).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner's Association pursuant to
compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, all the international players hails from the
entire Andhra area of the petitioners association
shall become full members of the association.
Accordingly, two men and one woman became the
full members of this association. Moreover, apart
from international players, two members from
Indian Cricket Association (ICA) hails from
Andhra Pradesh, shall be the members of the
petitioner's Association as per the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court. He further claims that the
Hon'ble Apex Court specifically excluded the
Ranji players as full members of BCCI as well as
State Associations, since there are thousands /
hundreds in number within the respective
jurisdiction of concerned State Association, if
they were admitted as full members, the balance
of administration of associations is at stake. As
such, cautiously they were excluded from the full
membership of the concerned state association.
NV,J
Respondent No.1 filed counter Affidavit by
which he denied the contentions of the petitioner
herein.
The learned counsel for the Respondents
submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the present writ petition under Article
226 of constitution of India. The impugned order
dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Hon'ble
Ombudsman after considering all the aspects,
including byelaws, judgments of Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as this Court and also after
considering the written statement submitted by
the petitioner's association herein. He further
submits that the petitioner's Association is
available with alternative statutory remedy under
Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act,
2001, if aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble
Ombudsman by invoking original petition before
jurisdictional Court of law but not by way of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. He further submits that
the Committee of Administrators in its status
Report categorically states that all the
international and national players should provide
NV,J
an opportunity to participate in management
Committee of Associations. In similar
circumstances this Court in V. Durga Prasad vs.
Andhra Cricket Association and others4,
observed as under:
10. Issue No.3:
As the impugned order is passed
exercising the powers under Rule 43, 44 and
45 of Bye-laws of ACA following the procedure
contemplated therein and Ombudsman is an
independent internal dispute redressal
mechanism created as per the directions of the
Apex Court in the case of BCCI Vs Cricket
Association of Bihar and he is like that of an
arbitrator created under the contracts and any
breach of Byelaws as held by this Court in the
case of Mohammed Azharuddin Vs. K. John
Manoj and others, the petitioner has to
approach the Civil Court under the provisions
of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies
Registration Act, as the 1st respondent was
registered as a Society under Societies
Registration Act. This Court found that after
receiving the complaint, petitioner was given
fair and full opportunity to file counter and lead
evidence, show cause notice was also issued
and considered explanation and Ombudsman
elaborately dealt with all the series of orders
passed by it and its compliance before
W.P.No.27180 of 2021, dated 16.03.2022
NV,J
conducting elections and filing of counter and
was given ample opportunity to defend his
case and thereby not violated any principles of
natural justice. Hence, contra contentions of the
counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd
respondent had illegally terminated the
petitioner from the elected office of the
Secretary of 1st respondent in blatant violation
of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of
India and also contrary to the Bye-laws, Rules
and Regulations of the 1st respondent
Association, violative of principles of natural
justice and contrary to the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are untenable, as
the 2nd respondent has given full and fair
opportunity to the petitioner and it has power to
impose penalties for the violation of its orders
as it is created as per the orders of the Apex
Court. Accordingly, it is held that the writ
petition is not maintainable before this Court
against the impugned order. Accordingly, the
Issue No.3 is answered.
The above said ratio is also upheld by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.411 of
2022, dated 19.04.2023 wherein it is held as
follows:
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
NV,J
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 10 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
NV,J
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.
Learned counsel for the Respondents also
relied upon ratio laid down by the High Court for
the State of Telangana in Mohd. Azharuddin Vs.
K. John Manoj and others5 wherein it is held
as follows:
42. So when the circumstances for
entertaining a Writ Petition against the Board
of Control for Cricket for India are very limited
since it is not a 'State' under Art.12 of the
Constitution, it is a moot question whether a
Writ Petition can be maintained against the 2nd
respondent, a Society which is a private body,
or against the decision (final or interim) of an
Ombudsman of the said Society appointed
under Rules/Bye-laws which have no
statutory force.
MANU/TL/0703/2021
NV,J
In view of the ratio laid down by this Court
the present writ petition is not maintainable and
hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
in limine.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the Respondents and
perused the material placed before this Court, the
preliminary issue fell for consideration before this
Court is:
i) Whether this Court is having jurisdiction to
entertain the present writ petition or not ?
ii) If so, the petitioner is entitled any interim
relief as prayed for.
For perusal of the impugned directions /
orders passed by the Hon'ble Ombudsman are
extracted as under:
27. In the result accordingly the case is
disposed of with the following directions:
1. The Respondent to give membership to the
former Ranji players who played at least 5
Ranji Trophy matches representing the
Respondent and for the Andhra area
previously, and presently, Andhra Pradesh
Area, which together with the membership of
the former international players shall be equal
to or not exceeding 50% of the present General
Body Members, formulated by the Apex
Council members of the Respondent and the
NV,J
District Cricket Associations and others, who
are actually the full members of the
Respondent and the former International
players in future any changes take place in
the strength of those General Body Members
(apart from the Cricket players who become
the General Body Members) from time to time
50% of such strength so changed be taken
respectively working out a formula because
they (other than players) should have
adequate representation in the General Body
to safeguard their interest.
6. The Respondent should approach the High
Court concerned at the earliest possible time
for effecting necessary amendments after
complying with the initial formalities noted
above under the Rule 49 of the Bye Laws.
7. The whole process should be completed as
observed within a period of six months which
shall be a Condition President for holding
further General Body meeting of the
Respondent beyond the said period.
On perusal of the direction No.6 as
mentioned above, the Hon'ble Ombudsman
himself directed the petitioner's association
should approach the High Court at the earliest
possible time for effecting necessary amendments
to the byelaws of the Association. Apart from this
direction, as per Rule 49 of the ACA byelaws
specifically prohibits any amendments to the
NV,J
byelaws without the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court / High Court of Andhra Pradesh. For
better understanding Rule 49 of the ACA byelaws
is extracted as under:
49. Amendment and Repeal:
These Rules and Regulations of ACA
shall not be repealed, added to, amended or
altered except when passed and adopted by
a 3/4th majority of the Members present and
entitled to vote at a Special General Meeting
of the General Body conveyed for the
purpose or at the Annual General Meeting.
Any such amendment will not be given effect
to without the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court / High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The contention of the Respondents that
there was no representation of the players in the
management Committee and that players should
be given importance and should be included in
the management of the Association is well
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Board
of Control for Cricket vs. Cricket Association
of Bihar and others, wherein it is held as
follows:
89. That brings us to the recommendation
made by the Committee regarding the
formation of a Players' Association. To the
extent the recommendation provides for
NV,J
establishment of a Players' Association neither
the BCCI nor any other association who has
intervened has found fault with the view taken
by the Committee. What has come under
criticism by the BCCI and its supporting
associations is the financial assistance which
the BCCI is required to give to such an
association. On behalf of the BCCI it was
contended that cricket players can indeed
form an association which they are in any
case entitled to form, but that exercise need
not be at the expense of the BCCI. The
recommendation for financial support to the
association is thus all that has been faulted by
the BCCI. It was also contended that there
was no need for providing any representation
for the Association in the Apex Council of the
BCCI having regard to the fact that some of
the cricketers had in the past held offices in
the State Associations and in the BCCI by
recourse to the democratic process, without
any such reservation.
90. There are three distinct aspects of the
recommendation in question. One relates to
formation of the Association itself; the second
touches the financial support which the BCCI
must provide to the Association and; the third
deals with the representation given to the
Association in the Apex Council. Formation of
the Association, as noticed earlier, is not under
challenge and rightly so for cricket players
have a fundamental right to form an
NV,J
association even independent of the
recommendation. The question is whether the
association needs to be financially supported
by the BCCI. The Committee has
recommended such financial support but has
stopped short of specifying the extent of such
support. It would, therefore, be reasonable to
presume that the extent of financial support
which the association may be given is left to
the discretion of the BCCI. If that be so, we do
not see any merit in the objection raised by the
BCCI that such support need not be given or
would unduly burden the BCCI. An
association of cricket players would doubtless
give to the cricketing community not only an
opportunity to contribute to the promotion of
the game but a sense of participation also so
very important for the promotion of a game
that brings so much joy and feelings of
nationalism among our countrymen. Financial
support, to the extent possible, having regard
to the resources available with the BCCI and
its financial commitments in other areas
relevant to the game is not therefore an
unacceptable idea. The recommendation
requiring financial support to the players
association cannot therefore be rejected
especially when the extent of such support is
left to the BCCI to be decided on a fair and
objective view of its financial resources and
commitments.
NV,J
As contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and as per the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of
Control for Cricket in India and others vs.
Cricket Association of Bihar and others6,
held as under:
"44. We approve the above clauses. We
are emphatically of the view that once the
draft Constitution has been approved by this
Court, any amendment should not be given
effect to without the leave of this Court."
Therefore, any amendments to the byelaws
cannot be made without the leave of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court / High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
In the present case in hand the directions of the
Hon'ble Ombudsman should be complied with by
way of carrying amendments to the existing
byelaws of the association.
Further it is observed that Rule 49 of the
byelaws of the petitioner's Association mandates
that any such amendment will not be given effect
to without the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court / High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
(2018) 9 SCC 624 : 2018 SCC Online SC 875
NV,J
In view of the above analysis any such
amendment will not be given effect to without the
leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or High Court
of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the impugned
order of the Hon'ble Ombudsman is certainly
amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of the above analysis and on
perusal of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket
vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others,
the issue is answered in favor of the petitioner.
On perusal of direction No.7 of Hon'ble
Ombudsman as mentioned supra the power /
authority and legislative competency of the
petitioner's Association was taken away by
restraining the Association not to conduct any
general body meetings till the completion of whole
process as directed is contrary to the byelaws of
the Society and out of the jurisdiction and
authority.
Therefore, the order of the Hon'ble
Ombudsman restraining the petitioner's Society
not to conduct any general body meetings till
completion of entire process as directed is liable
NV,J
to be suspended.
Accordingly, there is a prima facie case and
balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner.
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the order passed by the Hon'ble
Ombudsman is liable to be suspended for a short
period for further adjudication of the matter.
Accordingly, there shall be an interim
suspension in operation of directions 6 and 7 of
the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in Case No.16
of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Ombudsman of
petitioner's Association, for a period of four
weeks.
Post the matter after three weeks.
________
NV, J
knr
