Indian Hockey Federation vs Union Of India And Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3494 Del

$~
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
52.
+                                   W.P.(C) No. 4978 of 2010

         INDIAN HOCKEY FEDERATION              ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. A.K. Nigam, Senior Advocate with
                      Mr. D.S. Narula, Ms. Manmeet Arora and Ms. F.
                      Ahmed Khan, Advocates.

                           versus


         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.              ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Devvrat with Mr. M.P. Singh,
                       Advocates for UOI.
                       Ms. Kusumlata Sharma, Advocate for R-5.
                       Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Divya
                       Kapur and Ms. S. Trehan, Advocates for R-4.
                       Mr. S.D. Salwan, Advocate for R-3.

          CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

                                     ORDER

%                                    27.07.2010

CM No. 9837 of 2010

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No. 4978 of 2010 & CM No. 9836 of 2010 (for stay)

1. The Indian Hockey Federation („IHF‟) which had earlier come to this

Court with Writ Petition (C) No. 3713 of 2008 challenging its disaffiliation

by the Indian Olympic Association („IOA‟) Respondent No.3 and its

consequent de-recognition by the Union of India through Ministry of Youth

Affairs and Sports („MYAS‟) Respondent No.1, is again before this Court

challenging a communication dated 10th/11th August 2009 issued by the

MYAS granting provisional recognition to Hockey India („HI‟) Respondent

No.4 herein as well as a letter dated 13th July 2010 by the MYAS addressed

to the Secretary General, HI conveying its "no objection to the holding of

the elections of HI".

2. The principal contention advanced by Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior

counsel appearing for the Petitioner was that after the judgment dated 21 st

May 2010 of this Court allowing Writ Petition (C) No. 3713 of 2008, setting

aside the decision of both the IOA as well as the MYAS to disaffiliate and

derecognize respectively the IHF, the consequential position was that in

terms of the Guidelines issued by the MYAS for recognition of National

Sports Federations („NSFs‟) there was only one recognised body for hockey

in India, which was the IHF. He submits that HI has, contrary to the above

legal position, claimed publicly that it continues to be the only recognised

body for hockey in India and on that basis has also corresponded with the

International Hockey Federation („FIH‟). HI is now holding elections to its

Executive Board on 28th July 2010. The interim relief being sought is that

there should be a stay of the letter dated 13 th July 2010 issued by the Union

of India whereby it has appointed "Government Election Observer" to

observe the election process of HI "on behalf of the Government of India".

A stay is also sought of the letter dated 10th/11th August 2009 of the MYAS

granting provisional recognition to HI. It is submitted that in view of an

affidavit dated 5th April 2010 filed by the MYAS before the Division Bench

of this Court in Rahul Mehra v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 195 of 2010),

which writ petition is pending, the provisional recognition should be deemed

to have been withdrawn and, therefore, no further steps should be taken on

that basis. He submitted that HI which was incorporated only on 20 th May

2009 did not fulfill even the basic requirement of being in existence for three

years before becoming eligible for recognition in terms of the MYAS

Guidelines.

3. Notice. Mr. Devvrat, learned counsel for the MYAS, Mr. S.D. Salwan,

learned counsel for the IOA, Ms. Kusumlata Sharma, learned counsel for

Indian Hockey Women‟s Federation and Ms. Divya Kapur, learned counsel

for the HI accept notice. Replies be filed within one week and rejoinder

thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.

4. Mr. Devvrat, learned counsel appearing for the MYAS first stated that he

did not have any instructions from the MYAS till now on the petition

although a copy was received by it yesterday evening. He, nevertheless,

made certain submissions since he has been appearing for the MYAS in

W.P. (C) No. 195 of 2010 in which the above affidavit was filed. He

confirmed that the said affidavit of the MYAS, stating that no recognition

had been granted yet to HI, does not stand withdrawn and that as of date no

final recognition has been accorded to HI by the MYAS. He also confirmed

that the MYAS has accepted the judgment dated 21st May 2010 of this Court

and that the legal position as a result of the said decision is that the IHF is

the only recognised body for hockey in India. He also maintained that the

Government stands by its Guidelines which governs the issue of granting of

recognition to NSFs by the MYAS.

5. Mr. Nayar, learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 HI

submitted that as regards the judgment dated 21 st May 2010 passed by this

Court, the legal consequences thereof are not being questioned by the HI.

He maintained that HI is a private body and should be free to hold its own

elections. According to him, the HI is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction

of this Court. He submitted that there would be no difficulty if a

clarification is issued by the Government of India and/or the IOA about IHF

being only the recognised body for hockey in India, a position that emanates

from the judgment dated 21st May 2010 of this Court. His only concern was

that elections of the HI scheduled for 28th July 2010 should go on since this

was pursuant to a commitment made to the FIH the international body that

elections will be held no later than "31st July 2010". He placed before the

Court photocopies of letters dated 14th June 2009 and 23rd June 2010 written

by Mr. Peter L Cohen, the Secretary General, FIH in this regard. Mr. Nayar

stated that HI may have issued press releases claiming to be the only

recognised body for hockey in India but this Court should not go by such

statements as HI is fully aware of the correct legal position emanating from

the judgment dated 21st May 2010 of this Court.

6. Mr. Nayar prayed that at this interlocutory stage no opinion should be

expressed about the validity of the provisional recognition granted on

10th/11th August 2009 by the MYAS to HI and that the question whether in

view of the subsequent affidavit dated 5th April 2010 filed by the MYAS

before the Division Bench of this Court in Rahul Mehra's case, such

provisional recognition should be deemed to have been withdrawn should

await the completion of pleadings and final hearing of this petition.

7. Appearing for the IOA Respondent No. 3, Mr. S.D. Salwan learned

counsel submits that the immediate concern is about meeting the deadline set

by the FIH and the fact that the Commonwealth Games is to take place in

less than three months. Mr. Salwan reiterated that the IOA had not yet filed

any appeal against the judgment dated 21st May 2010. He did not also

contest the legal position as of today as a result of the said judgment that

IHF is the only recognised body for hockey in India. He contended that there

had to be one unified body for men and women for hockey in India in terms

of the requirements of the FIH as well as the Guidelines of the MYAS.

According to him since IHF did not represent women hockey, it may not be

granted recognition by the FIH and this in turn may cause problems for

Indian participation in international hockey events.

8. In the first place, this Court would like to observe that despite the Court

voicing an expectation in para 76 of its judgment dated 21 st May 2010 that

steps would be taken to make a new beginning and that MYAS would "set

things in order with the cooperation of both the IHF and the IOA and any

other body that may have been set up", the MYAS has till today not called

for even a meeting of the concerned bodies to examine the legal position that

emerges as a result of the judgment dated 21 st May 2010. The situation that

has now resulted where there is confrontation between different bodies could

have easily been avoided had the MYAS by now called for a meeting to

discuss the issues. It was the MYAS which had to take the first step in

making it clear that as a result of the judgment dated 21 st May 2010 there

was only one recognised body for hockey in India i.e. IHF. This position is

accepted by the IOA as well. HI also does not contest this position while

maintaining that it is a private body that has a provisional recognition. The

needless confusion created as a result of the media releases by the HI

claiming that it is the only recognised body for hockey in India should have

been checked by the MYAS by bringing out a clarification.

9. Learned counsel for the MYAS assures the Court that by today evening

(„i.e. by 5 pm) an announcement will be made about both through the print

and electronic media as well as a fax/email/telephonic message will be sent

to all the State units that the correct legal position as a result of the judgment

dated 21st May 2010 of this Court is that the IHF is the only recognised body

for hockey in India, in terms of the Guidelines issued by the MYAS. Mr.

Salwan representing the IOA, assures this Court that by today evening a fax

message and an e-mail will be sent by the IOA to the FIH along with a copy

of this order, informing it of the legal position emanating from the judgment

dated 21st May 2010 of this Court, which has not been challenged by anyone

so far, that the IHF is the only recognised body for hockey in India in terms

of the Guidelines issued by the MYAS. A reference will be made to

Guideline 3.1.2 which says that for an existing National Sports Federation

which has already been recognised, the requirement that there should be a

separate body for men and women, is dispensed with.

10. In view of the above statements made by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the MYAS as well as the IOA, the plea of Mr. Nayar that HI being

a purely private body should be permitted to go ahead with elections to its

Executive Board tomorrow, appears to be a reasonable one at the present

stage. It is however made clear that the said elections, which are to be held

on 28th July 2010 will go on only and only if both the clarifications/messages

are issued today itself in terms of the statements made before this Court by

the MYAS and the IOA respectively. In other words, if the MYAS and the

IOA do not issue the clarifications/messages by 5 pm today as undertaken by

them to this Court, the elections to the General Council of the HI scheduled

for 28th July 2010 will not go on. This is subject to further orders that will

be passed by this Court on the next date of hearing. It is further directed that

in view of the statement made by Mr. Nayar, appearing on behalf of the HI

that it is a purely private body, there is no need for the Government to have

its Observer for the elections of the Executive Board of HI to be held on 28th

July 2010. To that extent, the impugned communication dated 13 th July

2010 of the MYAS appointing Shri S.K. Mehndiratta as the Government

Observer for the elections of the Executive Board of HI to be held on 28th

July 2010 shall remain stayed.

11. List on 9th August 2010.

12. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties under

the signature of Court Master.

S. MURALIDHAR, J JULY 27, 2010 dn