A.I. Singh & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1417 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                Date of Decision: April 16, 2009

%                W.P.(C) 16730-39/2006 & CM No. 13780/2006

        A.I. SINGH & ORS.                             ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. (appearance not given), Advocate.

                      versus

        UOI & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents
                           Through: Mr. Hari Shankar K, Advocate for
                           Respondents No. 2 & 7.
                           Mr. Anil Grover, Ms. Subhangi Tuli and Mr.
                           Hariom Kumar, Advocates for Respondent
                           No. 5.
                           Ms.    Bandna     Shukla,      Advocate   for
                           Respondent No. 6.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                           ORDER

16.04.2009

1. The present petitions styled as a 'Public Interest Petition' have

been filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the Government of

India inter alia to act upon the report submitted by respondent No. 3

as also to enquire into the affairs of respondent No. 2; to de-recognize

respondent No. 2; to establish a transparent and fair system for

training, ranking and selection of players and for conduct of

tournaments amongst the other reliefs.

2. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be a highly qualified Squash

Coach who is also the Secretary of petitioner No. 2 Association and

the petitioners are associated with the game of Squash in some form

or the other and claimed to have made numerous efforts to promote

Squash by way of coaching and administration in their respective

States. It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 is

the National Federation for the game of Squash which purports to

control and dominate the sport inasmuch as it monopolizes

Government patronage and money, monopolizes the selection of the

players who represent India and monopolizes the affairs of the sport

of Squash in the country to the detriment of India. It is also

contended by the petitioners that respondent No. 2 is not functioning

and acting for the sole purpose of development of Squash causing

great and irreversible damage to the game of Squash in India. The

petitioners allege that there are serious irregularities in the

functioning of respondent No. 2, which is guilty of mismanaging the

sport of Squash in India and that respondent No. 2 has deliberately

not followed the guidelines as issued by the Government of India.

The petitioners thus seek directions to the Government of India to

immediately intervene inter alia by acting on various reports made by

the respondent No. 3 to the Government of India as also take

cognizance of various newspaper articles and complaints filed by

several effected parties and to take charge of the affairs of respondent

No. 2.

3. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

It has been contended that the petitioners have floated rival

associations which are not affiliates/member of the Apex body,

namely, respondent No. 2 and are being run parallel to existing

affiliated associations in order to disturb a proper channel/route and

to confuse the Squash players for their ulterior motives. It is the

allegation of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioners have chosen

this method of filing baseless cases, complaints against respondent

No. 2 to thwart the smooth functioning of the respondent Association.

The respondent No. 2 has further averred that the present Public

Interest Petition is actually for serving the private ends of the

petitioners and in order to sub-serve their rivalry, petitioners have

invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to settle

personal grievances. It is also the stand of respondent No. 2 that

petitioners have heavily relied upon the report of Brig. Raj

Manchanda, respondent No. 3 herein and that petitioner Nos. 1 and

2 have not disclosed that petitioner No. 1 along with the same Brig.

Raj Manchanda founded this parallel and rival Chandigarh Squash

Racket Association, now known as Indian Squash Association. Brig.

Raj Manchanda has instigated this vindictive campaign against

respondent No. 2 for his collateral purposes. It is also the case of

respondent No. 2 that the writ petitions involve several serious

disputed questions of fact and further that respondent No. 2 is not a

State within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and there is no deep and pervasive control of the Government over

the said body.

4. Reply has also been filed by respondent No. 5, the Sports

Authority of India. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that it is making

all efforts to provide maximum assistance for the improvement of

overall sports culture in the country. As per respondent No. 5,

recognition to a National Sports Federation (hereinafter referred to as

'NSF') is directly granted by respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5

has no role therein. The respondent No. 5 has further averred that it

has no administrative control over National Sports Federations.

However, in case of any irregularity on part of any NSF, respondent

No. 5 can report the same to respondent No. 4. It has also been

stated by respondent No. 5 that it had set up an enquiry of a senior

level officer on the complaint submitted by respondent No. 3 on the

functioning of respondent No. 2. The report of the enquiry was duly

forwarded to respondent No. 4. As per the re-commendations

contained in this report, it was recommended in the report that the

Squash Racket Federation of India was doing a good job in the area of

Squash and should be allowed to function without divergence of their

efforts in frivolous allegations. (Annexure R-2A pg 174 @ pg 180).

5. We refrain from expressing any view on the rival contentions of

the parties except to say that this is not a fit case for exercising

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. It is clear from the factual matrix of the contentions and rival

contentions, as narrated hereinabove, that this petition which is

styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation' is nothing but a camouflage to

foster personal disputes. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Duttaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra &

Ors., 2005 (1) SCC 590, that a Public Interest Litigation which has

now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law

should not be "publicity interest litigation" or ''private interest

litigation". There must be a real and genuine public interest involved

in the litigation. It cannot be invoked by a person or a body of

persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their

personal grudge and enmity. In the same judgment, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court also held that public interest litigation is a weapon

which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the

judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful

veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or

publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective

weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the

citizens.

6. The present petitions clearly involve disputed questions of fact,

serious disputes and rivalry between rival/competing Squash

Associations. Cases, where what is strictly an individual dispute is

sought to be converted into a 'Public Interest Litigation' should not be

encouraged. The dispute is essentially between rival and competing

associations. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramsharan

Autyanuprasi and another v. Union of India and others, 1989

Supp(1) SCC 251, public interest litigation is an instrument for the

administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases. Public

interest litigation does not mean settling disputes between individual

parties. The present petitions involve several disputed questions of

fact. We fail to see any public interest involved in this petition. The

disputes raised in essence are disputes between rival associations.

7. Taking all the facts and circumstances, we are of the

considered view that no case is made out to exercise jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the

petitioners. No public interest is involved in the present petitions.

The writ petitions along with pending application are consequently

dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J APRIL 16, 2009 sb