Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boys And Girls Circket Association Of ... vs The Chitoor District Cricket ... on 28 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No. 5867 OF 2023
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue Writ of Certiorari Mandamus by calling the records in Case No.9 of 2021
on the file of the 3rd respondent and declare the action of the 3rd respondent in
entertaining the petition filed by the 1st respondent and passing order dated
10.01.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules and Regulations of
the Andhra Cricket Association and consequently, set-aside the same.
2. Before going into the merits of the case, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the
writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is decided only with regard to
maintainability.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that, the order
passed by the learned Ombudsman is amenable to the jurisdiction of the
District Judge under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, but not
under the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court, since the present case
arises out of the dispute regarding membership between two district cricket
associations with the second respondent - State Association. As long as the
dispute between the district associations regarding membership of the State
NV,J
Association i.e. Andhra Cricket Association on the ground of eligibility to
become full member, the jurisdiction lies to the District Court under Section 23
of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act. He also argues that any
order passed by the learned Ombudsman is also amenable to invoke
jurisdiction before the concerned District Court as per Section 23 of the
Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, but not the High Court. Therefore,
invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction against the order of learned
Ombudsman is liable to be rejected, as such the writ petition is not
maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner has a remedy of approaching to the
District Court against the order of the learned Ombudsman. In support of their
contentions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in V. Durga Prasad v. Andhra Cricket
Association1.
4. Sri S.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
that availability of the alternate remedy is no bar for maintaining the said writ
petition. Learned counsel contends that when a private body exercises its
public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy,
not only under the ordinary law, but also by way of a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
contends that, existence of alternate remedy does not mean that jurisdiction of
W.P.No.27180 of 2021 dated 16.03.2022
NV,J
High Court is ousted and rule of alternative remedy is rule of discretion and
not rule of jurisdiction. Merely because the Court may not exercise its
jurisdiction is no ground to hold that it has no jurisdiction. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad
Bhargava 2 ; Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra 3 ;
Balkrishna Ram vs. Union of India4; Board of Control for Cricket in India
vs. Cricket Association of Bihar 5 and judgments of this Court in The
Andhra Cricket Association vs. Rafi Ahmad Kidwai and others6.
5. Heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri N. Bharath Babu for Respondent No.1; Sri N. Ravi Prasad for Respondent
Nos.2 & 3; and learned Government Pleader for Sports appearing for
Respondent No.4 and perused the material available on record.
6. The point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is,
whether the present writ petition is maintainable by the petitioner
herein/cricket association against an award passed the Cricket Association
Ombudsman.
(2023) 4 SCC 498
(2020) 19 SCC 241
(2020) 2 SCC 442
(2015) 3 SCC 251
W.P.No.33002 of 2023 dated 12.01.2024
NV,J
7. Case No. 9 of 2021 was filed by the Chittoor District Cricket
Association/1st respondent herein to derecognize the Boys and Girls Cricket
Association of Chittoor District/petitioner herein and also declare the
suspension of the 1st respondent herein as full member of the Andhra Cricket
Association Executive Committee Meeting dated 29.10.2016 as illegal.
8. Vide order 10.01.2023, the learned Ombudsman, allowed Case No.9 of
2021 with the following directions:
"In the result, the petition is allowed and the suspension
imposed against the petitioner is set aside and the full
membership granted to the 2nd respondent by the petitioner on
29.10.2016 is set aside and the full membership of the
petitioner in the 1st respondent association is restored. Further
it is directed that the petitioner shall register and implement the
Lodha Committee reforms as directed by the Supreme Court as
required subject to holding necessary elections as required and
till that is done the 1st respondent should not send any fund to
the petitioner towards cricketing and administrative activities."
9. Challenging the order passed by the learned Ombudsman, the present
writ petition is filed.
10. Rule 49 of the Rules deals with amendment and repeal and it reads as
follows:
NV,J
"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."
11. From the above, it is manifestly clear that, a certain procedure is
prescribed for amendment of the Rules and Regulations of ACA, and they
cannot be modified casually or arbitrarily. Any alteration, addition, or repeal of
these rules necessitates a significant level of support from the members,
specifically, a 3/4th majority vote is required from the members present and
eligible to vote i.e. Requirement of Majority Approval. Any amendment to the
Rules and Regulations of ACA cannot be implemented without the approval of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court or High Court, which indicates a high level of
scrutiny and ensures that any changes are in line with legal requirements and
possibly the original mission or purpose of the ACA.
12. The orders of the learned Ombudsman accepting the claim of the 1st
respondent herein and directing the 2nd respondent to grant full membership in
favour of the 1st respondent herein is nothing but causing an amendment to
the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations of the Andhra Cricket
Association and it's Bye-Laws. Pursuant to the order of the learned
NV,J
Ombudsman, the 2nd respondent shall conduct General Body Meeting to
induct the 1st respondent as it's Full Member by amending the existing bye-
laws in respect of its list of members.
13. On plain reading of Rule 49 of the Rules referred above, it is clear that,
any amendment to the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent - Association shall be
given effect only with the approval/permission of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court/High Court.
14. It appears that, vide order dated 10.01.2023, the learned Ombudsman
had exercised the jurisdiction, which causes an amendment to the listed
existing members of the bye-laws, which should have been done only with the
3/4th majority of the Members at a Special General Meeting of the General
Body convened for the said purpose. But, such an amendment shall not be
given effect to without the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to
the judgment in V. Durga Prasad v. Andhra Cricket Association (referred
supra). In the facts of the said case, the order passed by the Ombudsman in
relation to the dispute of membership of the district association, caused
amendment to the bye-laws of that particular district association. While
dismissing the writ petition, this Court relegated the parties to invoke
jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001. But,
NV,J
judgment relied on the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to
the present case, for the reason that, the order passed by the learned
Ombudsman directing to the 2nd respondent to implement the orders would
necessitates an amendment to the list of members of the bye-laws of the
State Association.
16. The Ethics Officer/Ombudsman of the 2nd respondent is a quasi judicial
authority which has come into existence by virtue of Justice Lodha Committee
reforms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India
Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others, appointed a seven Member
Committee headed by Justice R.M.Lodha, former Chief Justice of India to
examine and make suitable recommendations on several aspects such as
making of amendments to Memorandum of Association of Board of Control for
Cricket in India, Rules and Regulations and to prevent frauds, conflict of
interests and streamline its work. On 18.12.2015 the Committee
recommended appointment of Ombudsman and Ethics Officer. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of the Committee and
directions were given to Board of Control for Cricket in India (in short 'BCCI')
to implement the recommendations. Accordingly, amendments were made to
the Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of the 2nd respondent and the
rules and regulations and Bye-laws were registered. Therefore, as per Rule
NV,J
49, any amendment to the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent require prior
approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court, as discussed above.
17. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Ombudsman has exercised his jurisdiction to grant such relief in Case No.9 of
2021 dated 10.01.2023, which necessitates to amend/repeal and alter the list
of members of the byelaws/ Regulations of ACA, except with 3/4th majority in
Special General Meeting and any such amendment shall be done only with
the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or High Court. Hence, the order
passed by the learned Ombudsman is amenable to the jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court, in view of Rule 49 of the Rules. Hence, I find that the writ
petition is maintainable.
18. Post the writ petition for further hearing in the first week of July, 2024.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Date:28.06.2024
SP
NV,J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No. 5867 OF 2023
Date:28.06.2024
SP
