Delhi High Court
Tatpal Singh Jaggi And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 August, 2015
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 11.02.2015
Pronounced on: 31.08.2015
+ W.P.(C) 2989/2013, C.M. NOS.5642/2013, 14472/2013, 1393/2014,
CRL.M.A.4829/2014, C.M. NO.4980-81/2014 & 10440-10441/2014
TATPAL SINGH JAGGI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Sh. Rahul Mehra and Ms. Roma Bhagat,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG with Sh.
Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC and Sh. T.P. Singh,
Advocate, for UOI.
Sh. Noopur Singhal, for Sh. Anil Grover,
Advocate, for SAI.
Sh. V. Vasudevan, Advocate, for Respondent
No.3.
Sh. D.P. Singh, Sh. R.P. Vyas, Ms. Sonam Gupta,
Sh. Rajkiran Vats, Sh. Salil Bhattacharya, Sh.
Aditya Verma, Ms. Aarti Goyal and Ms. S.
Lakshmi, Advocates, for Respondent No.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. The present public interest litigation, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, concerns the selection of Respondent No. 5 as the
recipient of an award, i.e. Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puraskar (hereafter
referred to as "the Puraskar") for the year 2011 and the constitution of the
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 1
committee under the Scheme for the Puraskar subsequent to the amendment
dated 01.03.2011, responsible for selection of the Puraskar awardees.
2. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India
(hereinafter referred to as "MYAS") is the first respondent; the second
respondent is the Sports Authority of India ("SAI"), the third respondent is
the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu ("SDA"), the fourth
respondent is the Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Association ("the
Association"). The fifth respondent is an individual businessman who is also
in the field of sports administration.
3. MYAS instituted the Puraskar in the year 2009 for contribution to
sports by individuals, corporates or institutions with a wish to encourage the
involvement of such entities in the promotion and development of sports in
the country. For the year 2011, the fifth Respondent was given the award in
the category of „Establishment and Management of sports academies of
excellence‟. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the fifth Respondent
was the Patron of Squash Rackets Federation of India (hereinafter referred to
as "SRFI") and President of the Association; Vice-President of SDA, the
third Respondent, which is the administrative wing of Youth Welfare and
Sports Development Department, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as the
"YWSDD"). He was also the Treasurer of the Indian Olympic Association
(hereinafter referred to as the "IOA") and was a Member (Executive
Committee) of SAI (the third Respondent) from 1998 till around 2005.
4. In terms of the scheme, which was amended in 2011, any corporate
entity, public or private, which had "visible role in the area of sports
promotion and development" including proprietary concerns, partnerships
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 2
and individuals could be nominated (under Rule 4.1) to receive the award if
they had "done commendable work in the area." The relevant qualifying
condition was:
"The entities which have contributed a minimum of 5% of their
gross profit or an amount of not less than Rs. 2 crore in the
preceding financial year towards sports promotion and
development will be eligible to be considered for the above
categories of the awards. Outlays meant for purely commercial
purposes will not be counted towards this contribution. Similarly,
outlays towards sports business ventures will also not be
counted. In other words, only contributions asserting the
contribution made by the corporate concerned, towards the
promotion and development of sport in the country."
Para 7.1 stipulated that awards in four categories would be recommended by
a Selection Committee constituted by the Central Government, each year.
Clause 7.3 spelt out the criteria/ heads under which the award was to be
given. This was in respect of four categories, i.e. " (a) Community Sports-
Identification and nurturing of budding talent; (b) Financial support for
sports excellence; (c) Establishment and Management of sports academies
of excellence; (d) Employment to sportspersons and other welfare
measures."
Each category had a different set of criteria which the committee had to
consider while recommending names. In respect of Clause 7.3 (c), which
this petition is concerned with, the following criteria were spelt out:
"(i) Number of academies created/supported along with
disciplines
(ii) Details about area, infrastructure, equipment, coaches
and scientific support made available in the academy
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 3
(iii) Number of sportspersons being trained
(iv) Achievements of the sportspersons trained at the
Academy
(v) Total expenditure incurred for the establishment of
academy."
Clause 8 of the Scheme stated that there could be only one award for each of
the four categories spelt out in Clause 7. Clause 11 stated that an award
could not be given for a second time to the same corporate entity in the same
category.
5. The fifth Respondent was nominated as a potential candidate for the
award under Category 7.3 (c) of the Scheme, i.e. "(c) Establishment and
Management of sports academies of excellence". The award given to him is
the subject matter of challenge. The Petitioners also challenge the
notification whereby the composition of the Committee was changed before
the Selection of the fifth respondent.
Submissions Made on Behalf of the Petitioners:
I: Re. Selection of the fifth Respondent for the Puraskar
6. The Petitioners challenge the selection of fifth respondent as a
Puraskar awardee in 2011 for several reasons. It is contended that in terms
of Rule 4 of the Scheme for the award, entities which contribute a minimum
of 5% of their gross profit or an amount not less than ₹ 2 crores in the
preceding financial year towards sports promotion and development will be
considered for the awards. The Petitioners submit that the fifth Respondent‟s
personal contribution towards sports promotion and development in the
preceding financial year is less than ₹ 2 crores. It is highlighted that the
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 4
certificate from the chartered accountants (one M/s Venkat and Rangaa)
dated 28.04.2011, relied upon by the said respondent to establish his
financial contribution, indicates that the contribution for the past two years
has cumulatively been more than 2 years, and not for the preceding financial
year. Therefore, the fifth Respondent was ineligible for the Puraskar.
7. The Petitioners allege that the fifth Respondent did not show any
proof of his personal financial contribution at the time of making the
application and instead provided balance sheet of SRFI, which the fifth
Respondent had left on 01.11.2008. The balance sheet does not show
contribution of more than ₹ 2 crores. Instead, the fifth Respondent‟s
donation of £ 30,876 to the World Squash Federation is clearly reflected in
the balance sheet.
8. Besides the absence of the contribution (of ₹ 2 crores as required by
the rules) the fifth Respondent, it is said, has not shown any personal
contribution to the figure of ₹ 15 crores quoted for the establishment of the
academy, as required by Rule 7.3. According to the Petitioners, grants from
Respondent MYAS/SAI/IOA have been to SRFI and not to the fifth
Respondent.
9. The Petitioners urge that the fifth Respondent as president of the
fourth Respondent/ Association, used central funds and minimal SRFI funds
to create a Tamil Nadu academy and portrayed it as a national one.
Petitioners rely upon the first Respondent‟s reply dated 10.11.2008 to an
RTI application which stated that expenditure over and above the grant was
incurred by Respondent No. 4 and through sponsorships and has not stated
that any personal contribution was received from the fifth Respondent.
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 5
10. The Petitioners argue that the fifth Respondent‟s application was filed
well after the due date of 02.05.2011 as it was received by MYAS only on
09.05.2011. Therefore, the fifth Respondent‟s application was void in terms
of Rule 5 of the Scheme of the Puraskar. Further, according to the
Petitioners, the application is in the format of the old Puraskar scheme dated
15.03.2010 and has been purportedly forwarded on 06.05.2011 leading to
the presumption that Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 chose to forward the
application to the more favourable committee constituted in 2011.
11. The Petitioners submit that contrary to the objective of the Puraskar,
the fifth Respondent as the Secretary General of SRFI extracted grants and
facilities ostensibly for all regions of India only to utilize the benefits for the
Squash Academy, Chennai. Further, it is submitted that while the said fifth
Respondent has mentioned all his posts and achievements (in various sports
organisations) in his application for the Puraskar, he did not mention the
financial contribution towards maintenance of the said academy because this
information would have jeopardised his personal claim for the the Puraskar.
12. The MYAS in a circular dated 17.03.2010 titled "Rationalization of
National Sports Awards Schemes" which includes the Puraskar, clarified
that nominating authorities were required to certify that nominees were clear
from vigilance/disciplinary angles and not involved in acts or criminal and
moral turpitude.
13. The Petitioners highlight that Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were
indicted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in 2008. They also
rely upon an email dated 25.08.2011 sent to the Joint Secretary (MYAS)
setting out the reasons for ineligibility of the fifth Respondent to be awarded
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 6
the Puraskar. The Petitioners state that the application of other nominees in
the same category of the Puraskar for which the fifth Respondent was
awarded, was more impressive. One of the applicants - Services Sports
Control Board (SSCB) - had shown a contribution of Rs. 74 crores.
Petitioners seek to rely upon the fact that till date, Respondent No. 5 is the
only individual to have been awarded the Puraskar, to contend that the
award in favour of Respondent No. 5 was granted in a malafide manner. The
Petitioners argue that the two members of the Puraskar selection committee
for the year 2011, including the Chairperson, were fully aware of the
position regarding Respondent No. 5‟s claims in the Application Form.
14. The Petitioners next submit that the action of the third Respondent in
nominating the fifth Respondent for the award is malafide as the National
Triathlon Academy claimed to have been created and maintained by the said
fifth Respondent was in fact created on land given by the third Respondent
to the fourth Respondent under a lease agreement which did not specify any
triathlon academy or facilities; it was created to the knowledge of
Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent No. 4 by availing government grants
and it was in fact a SDAT-TNSRA Academy. Petitioners further submit that
the Respondents violated Rule 7.6 of the Scheme of the Puraskar. Rule 7.6
reads as follows:
"Any person directly or indirectly related to a entity nominated
for the Awards shall not be eligible to participate in the
deliberations of the Selection Committee, concerning that entity."
15. According to the Petitioners, Mrs. Shantini Kapoor - Principal
Secretary, YWSDD - had prior knowledge of the academy in her present
position as well as Member Secretary, SDAT (the third Respondent) in
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 7
2011. However, she was also in the Puraskar Selection Committee. Further,
her predecessor holding the same post nominated the fifth Respondent for
the Puraskar.
16. Petitioners submit that in light of the Respondent No. 5‟s failure to
fulfill any of the Puraskar Scheme clauses, the award given in his name is
arbitrary, illegal and bad in law and ought to be revoked and cancelled under
the Scheme. Respondent No. 5 was not selected for the award in 2009, even
though the material supplied was the same during that period. The
contribution of Respondent No. 5 as claimed was ₹ 5 crores in 2009 and ₹
15 crores in 2011. However, there is no explanation for the increase in
contribution from 2009 to 2011.
17. Petitioners submit that MYAS and SAI did not carry out the requisite
due diligence mandated by Rule 12 of the Scheme for the Puraskar. The
same has not been denied by the first respondent in its affidavit. The Deputy
Director of MYAS has admitted that "No documentary criteria were taken
from the files of the MYAS/SAI...as it is not required". Petitioners allege that
the first two Respondents are turning a blind eye to the irregularities in the
field of awarding the Puraskar.
II Re: Composition of Selection Committee for the Puraskar:
18. Rule 7.1 of the 2009 Scheme for the Puraskar provided for the
composition of 15 member committee for selection of the Puraskar
awardees. The composition was as follows:
1. Sportsperson of eminence Chairperson
2. Olympians of eminence from different 5 Members
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 8
disciplines
3. Arjuna Awardees from different disciplines 4 Members
4. Sports Administrators 2 Members
5. Director General, Sports Authority of India Member
6. Joint Secretary (Sports), Ministry of Youth Member
Affairs and Sports
7. Director/Deputy Secretary (Sports), Member-Secretary
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,
Government of India
19. However, the 2011 Scheme for the Puraskar, amended with effect
from 01.03.2011, modified the composition and the 5 Olympians and 4
Arjuna Awardees were absent in the new committee. Further, the committee
was no longer headed by an eminent sportsperson. The composition under
Rule 7.1 of the 2011 scheme is as follows:
1. Secretary, Department of Sports, Ministry of Chairperson
Youth Affairs and Sports
2. Previous awardees of Rashtriya Khel 2 Members
Protsahan Puruskar
3. Nominee of industry associations, viz. 1 Member
Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce
and Industry (FICCI), Confederation of
Indian Industries (CII), Associated
Chamber of Commerce (ASSOCHAM) etc.
4. Secretary (Sports) (in person) of the State 2 Members
Government
5. Director General, Sports Authority of India Member (Ex-officio)
6. Joint Secretary (Sports), Department of Member (Ex-officio)
Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
7. Deputy Secretary (Sports)/Director (Sports), Member-Secretary
Department of Sports (Ex-officio
20. The Petitioners highlight that the composition of other committees -
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 9
including for the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, Arjuna Awards and Dronacharya
Award - remained the same in 2011 and 2012 and there was no change in
their composition. It is submitted that the removal of eminent sportspersons
from the Selection Committee and the replacement of the Chairperson of the
Selection Committee by the Secretary, of Department of Sports under the
2011 Scheme is baseless and unfounded. Further, the Selection Committee
under the 2011 Scheme does not include any Olympian/Arjuna Awardee, as
was the case under the 2009 Scheme. Sportspersons cannot be held to be
irrelevant for the purposes of selecting the Puraskar awardees. This led to
the easy manipulations.
Submissions of MYAS, the first Respondent:
21. The first respondent, MYAS, challenges the maintainability of this
writ petition on the ground of delay as the impugned Puraskar was awarded
in August, 2011 whereas the present writ petition was filed in April 2013.
Further, Respondent No. 1 also contends that there is no infringement of any
fundamental right of the Petitioners that would justify the invocation of this
Court‟s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
22. MYAS alleges that the fifth Respondent was awarded the Puraskar for
the National Academy for Squash, Chennai. According to Respondent No.
1, the eligibility criteria for selection of „Individuals/proprietary/partnership
entities‟ is different from that for corporate entities. The role of the former
needs to be assessed in terms of their personal efforts and organizational
abilities in the promotion and development of sports. The Union of India
contends that the Selection Committee held two meetings, one on 26.7.2011
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 10
and the other on 11.08.2011 and evaluated the applications received for the
Puraskar against the selection criteria specified in the Scheme and
recommended, the fifth respondent for the Puraskar in the category of
„Establishment and Management of Sports Excellence‟. The other entity
selected for the Puraskar was Petroleum Sports Promotion Board, for the
category of „Financial Support for Sports excellence'. It is also stated that
the fifth Respondent was given the Puraskar for "Squash Academy,
Chennai." After disputing the Petitioners' contention that the criteria of
annual contribution of ₹ two crores applied for individuals, the UoI averred
that:
"So in the case of Shri N. Ramachandran, who had applied as
„Individual‟ for Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puruskar against the
category of „Establishment and management of sports academies
of excellence‟, the Selection Committee had taken into
consideration the efforts made by him in establishment and
management of sports academies of excellence for the discipline
of Squash and had assessed his suitability for the award in terms
of his efforts for number of academies created/supported, area,
infrastructure, equipment, coaches and scientific support made
available in the academy, number of sportspersons being trained,
achievements of sportspersons trained at the academy and the
total expenditure incurred.
As regards financial contributions made by Shri N.
Ramachandran, it is stated that as per a certificate given by
Venkat & Rangaa, Chartered Accountant, (Annexure --R-I), Shri
N. Ramachandran has from his account as well as from the
accounts of companies under his management where he holds
directorship and substantial share holdings funded Tamil Nadu
Racket Association Rs. 91,00,000 for the year ended 31.3.2010
and Rs. 36,00,000 for the year ended 31.3.2011 and funded
Squash Rackets Federation of India to the tune of Rs. 80,50,000/-
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 11
for the year ended 31.3.2010 and Rs. 11,75,000 for the year
ended 31.3.2011."
23. MYAS submits that the fifth Respondent‟s application was received
on 29.04.2011 through SRFI and that another application was received
through YWSDD, Government of Tamil Nadu on 09.05.2011.
24. Respondent No. 1 admits that Mrs. Shantini Kapoor was a member of
the Selection Committee for the Puraskar in 2011 but did not attend the
meetings of the Selection Committee. It is further stated that the interested
member would not be involved in deliberations concerning the entity with
whom the member is interested.
25. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)
argued that the court should not engage itself in the merits of the case as
long as procedural irregularity of a significant degree, illegality or mala
fides had not been established. It was submitted that the executive
Government's discretion to change the composition or membership of the
Selection Committee cannot be questioned, given that there was no proof of
bias. Relying on the record, it was argued that the actual Selection
Committee was constituted much after the applications were received, to
avoid any lobbying. This established fairness and transparency in the
decision making process. In the circumstances, as to whether it would have
been appropriate to continue with a Committee dominated by sports persons,
to evaluate the contributions of sports administrators, was an aspect best left
to the judgment of the Central Government, which had instituted the award
(i.e. the Puraskar) in the first place.
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 12
26. Again relying on the record, the learned ASG argued that the fifth
Respondent's candidature was judged in view of the standards prescribed
and in the same manner as in the case of the award in the other four
categories. It was reiterated that the criteria of 5% of the gross profit or ₹ 2
crore threshold did not apply to individuals nominated for the Puraskar,
because their contributions need not be necessarily quantifiable in monetary
terms. Thus, personal efforts in organizational abilities in sports had to be
evaluated on a case by case basis. Getting sponsors, approaching concerned
government organizations for securing land, financial assistance, state-of-
the-art infrastructure and sports equipment, getting trained coaches and other
support personnel, popularizing the sport, establishing and managing the
academies are much more important than financial contributions. While
financial contributions are important and required for promotion and
development of sports, they alone are not sufficient for promotion and
development of specific sports disciplines.
27. The third Respondent has also denied the allegations made by the
Petitioners against it in the writ petition and have prayed for its dismissal.
Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, has filed CM No. 14472 of 2013
seeking the dismissal of writ petition, inter alia, on grounds of non-
compliance with the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules,
2010. Respondent no. 2 has filed no written submission.
Submissions Made on Behalf of the fifth Respondent
28. The fifth Respondent too has challenged the maintainability of this
writ petition on the ground of delay. It is stated that more than 20 months
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 13
have elapsed since the fifth Respondent was awarded the Puraskar on
29.08.2011 and there is no explanation provided for this delay. The fifth
Respondent submits that the writ petition has been filed at the behest of one
Mr. Rahul Kumar Chadda, who bears personal animosity towards him. It is a
mala fide and personally motivated litigation and amounts to a blatant abuse
of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel also relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., 2005 (1) SCC 590, that a Public Interest Litigation
which is now an important field in the administration of law should not be
"publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation". It is urged that
the Petitioners are disgruntled elements and have approached courts time
and again with allegations against administration in the field of squash in
India. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.I.
Singh v Union of India W.P.(C) 16730-39/2006 (decided on 16.04.2009 by
a Division Bench of this Court).
29. On merits, the fifth Respondent submits that the requirement of
financial contribution of ₹ 2 crores or 5% of gross profit does not apply to
individuals. The Puraskar is awarded to the following categories of
applicants:
a. A corporate entity, public or private, that has played a visible role in
the area of sports promotion and development;
b. Individuals / proprietary / partnership entities which have done
commendable work in the area of sports promotion and development;
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 14
c. Entities which have contributed a minimum of 5% of their gross profit
or an amount not less than Rs.2 crore in the preceding financial year towards
sports promotion and development.
According to the fifth Respondent, only „entities‟ are required to
contribute ₹ 2 crores or 5% of their gross profit to be eligible for the
Puraskar. Since an individual is not an entity, the fifth Respondent‟s failure
to contribute the said amount does not disqualify him from being considered
for the Puraskar. This interpretation is in consonance with the Puraskar‟s
objective of promotion and encouragement of corporate involvement in the
development of sports. The fifth Respondent‟s submission in this regard is
reproduced below:
"That it would be completely contrary to the spirit and objective
of the Award to argue, as the Petitioners have done, that an
individual will only be eligible for the Award if he contributes Rs
2 crores in a particular financial year. The upshot of such an
interpretation would be detrimental to sport in two ways. First, it
would make the Award the preserve only of those individuals
who have deep pockets. This would be manifestly unfair. Sports
promotion and development does not occur by simply throwing
money at the sport. It is a result of dedication and enthusiasm.
These are the virtues that the Scheme seeks to reward, which
Respondent No 5 has shown in ample measure. Second, having a
minimum financial contribution requirement would mean that the
efforts of individuals who spend their lives promoting and
developing a sport that does not require huge levels of
investment would go completely unrecognized. It cannot have
been the intention of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to
discriminate between different sports in such an arbitrary
fashion."
30. The fifth Respondent states that he has "done commendable work" in
"the area of sports development and promotion" and was eligible for award
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 15
under the second category (individuals) under Rule 4.1 of the Scheme
governing the Puraskar. It is submitted that he did support the three
academies -National Academy for Squash, Chennai; National Academy for
Triathlon, Chennai and State Academy for Squash, Salem. It is because of
the said fifth Respondent‟s vision that the Indian Squash Academy was
formed.
Analysis and Conclusions:
I Delay in Filing the Present Petition
31. The Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Rajendra
Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 582 noted that "the delay rules apply to PILs also and
if there is no proper explanation for the delay, PILs are liable to be
summarily dismissed on account of delay". Further, in State of Kerala v.
A.K. Gopakumar, (2013) 11 SCC 606, the Court held that dismissal of a writ
petition, filed after 2 years and 8 months from the issuance of impugned
order, on grounds of limitation, is justified if no explanation for the delay is
offered. The scheme for Selection of the Puraskar for 2011 was notified on
01.03.2011 and the award was granted to the fifth respondent in August,
2011. The present writ petition has been filed in April, 2013, i.e. after a
period of 20 months from the grant of award to the fifth Respondent. The
Petitioners have placed on record materials in the form of RTI queries, and
copies of representations to the MYAS and other official bodies, both before
and after the grant of the Puraskar to the fifth respondent. Though facially,
the period of 20 months appears to be a delay, given the circumstances and
the fact that the proceedings highlight perceived inadequacies and
opaqueness in the selection process- i.e. change of the Selection
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 16
Committee‟s composition before the process began in the present case, and
the manner of selection of the fifth Respondent, the petition cannot be
dismissed on the ground of delay. This Court notes further that the Selection
Committee for the Puraskar at the time of filing of the petition or the hearing
still did not have any representation of eminent sportspersons and therefore,
insofar as the said issue is concerned, there is a continuing cause of action
and the bar of laches would not apply (ref M. Sudakar v. Manoharan, (2011)
1 SCC 484).
II Are the present proceedings liable to be dismissed on the ground that
the writ petitioners are motivated?
32. Public interest litigation, whether initiated under Article 226 before
the High Court or before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution, should be at the behest of an individual or group of individuals
who wish to highlight the plight of those disempowered by lack of resources
or poverty or other barriers, from seeking relief against violation of their
Constitutional or legal rights. It has also been extended as a powerful tool by
the Supreme Court to oversee implementation of State policies and ensure
fairness, transparency and good governance. The underlying concern is
public interest, and courts have been cautioned time and again not to launch
into adventures at the behest of meddlesome interlopers or "knight errants".
Reported judgments of the Supreme Court and this court have stressed that
the normal burden of courts should not be strained by entertaining pleas of
those who have an agenda of their own- private interest masquerading as
public interest should be weeded out. The Courts have evolved certain
guidelines or tests to ensure this, including that at times, even if the motive
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 17
of the mover (or the public interest litigant) is unclear, nevertheless if the
issues urged are important, prima facie, further proceedings are warranted
and justified.
33. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal 2004 (3) SCC 349
the Supreme Court narrated the principles and observed, in this regard that:
"There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the
litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke
ones into for a probe. It cannot also 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. Courts of justice should
not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public
interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights
and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for
personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court
in The Janta Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary [1992 (4) SCC 305]
and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who
comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not
only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with
a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas
Foundation v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852)
and K.R.Srinivas v. R.M.Premchand(1994 (6) SCC 620)."
The fifth Respondent‟s endeavour was to show that all the petitioners are
actuated by ill motive and that in a previous litigation too, allegations and
aspersions were cast against him, despite which this court dismissed the writ
petition (A.I. Singh‟s case). However, this Court notices that the said
proceeding did not relate to the award of the Puraskar. The Petitioners too
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 18
were not parties in that proceeding. Furthermore, by the present petition,
what is highlighted is the decision making process and the change in
constitution of the Selection Committee in a manner that from a
predominance of sportspersons in the Committee, there is none today.
Having regard to these circumstances and facts, it is held that the present
petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of ill-motive or that it is a
„publicity interest litigation‟.
III Composition of Selection Committee for the Puraskar
34. This Court on 27.05.2013 directed the MYAS to produce the relevant
records pertaining to the rationale for change in selection procedure and
composition of selection committee for the Pususkar with effect from 2011.
The earlier composition of the Selection Committee for the Puraskar was the
same as that for the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award, the Arjuna Award and
the Dhyan Chand Award. The Secretary (Sports) recommended that the
Selection Committees for the Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puraskar and that for
the Dhyan Chand Award should be separate from the Selection Committees
for the Khel Ratna and Dhyan Chand Award. The following tables
demonstrate the change in composition:
Table I: Prior to change (Common Selection Committee)
1. Sportsperson of Eminence Chairman
2. Olympians of eminence from different 5 members
disciplines
3. Arjuna Awardes from different disciplines 4 members
4. Sports Administrators 2 members
5. Director General, Sports Authority of India Member (Ex-officio)
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 19
6. Joint Secretary (Sports), Ministry of Youth Member (Ex-officio)
Affairs and Sports
7. Director/Deputy Secretary (Sports), Member-Secretary (Ex-
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports officio)
Table II: Proposed New Selection Committee for Dhyan Chand Award
1. Secretary, Department of Sports, Ministry Chairperson
of Youth Affairs & Sports
2. Olympians of eminence 2 members
3. Previous Dhyan Chand Awardees 2 members
4. Sports Administrators 1 member
5. Director General, Sports Authority of Member (Ex-officio)
India
6. Joint Secretary (Sports), Ministry of Member (Ex-officio)
Youth Affairs and Sports
7. Deputy Secretary/ Director (Sports), Member-Secretary (Ex-
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports officio)
The following changes can be observed:
1) Chairperson is now the Secretary (Sports), instead of a Sportsperson of
eminence.
2) Olympians have been reduced to 2 from 5 (-3).
3) 4 Arjuna Awardees have been replaced by 2 Dhyan Chand Awardees.
4) 2 Sports Administrators have been reduced to 1 (-1).
Table III: Effect of the changes in the composition of the Selection
Committee for the Dhyan Chand Award
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 20
Sportspersons Government Total
Representatives Composition
Committee
Committee
Table IV: Proposed Selection Committee for Rashtriya Khel Protsahan
Puraskar
1. Secretary, Department of Sports, Ministry of Chairperson
Youth Affairs & Sports
2. Previous awardees of Rashtriya Khel 2 members
Protsahan Puruskar
3. Nominee of Industry associations, viz. 1 member
Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce
& Industry (FICCI), Confederation of Indian
Industries (CII), Associated Chamber of
Commerce (ASSOCHAM) etc.
4. Secretary (Sports) (in person) of State 2 members
Government
5. Director General, Sports Authority of India Member (Ex-
officio)
6. Joint Secretary (Sports), Ministry of Youth Member (Ex-
Affairs and Sports officio)
7. Deputy Secretary/ Director (Sports), Ministry Member-Secretary
of Youth Affairs and Sports (Ex-officio)
The following changes can be observed
1) Chairperson is now the Secretary (Sports), instead of a Sportsperson of
eminence.
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 21
2) All (5) Olympians and all (4) Arjuna Awardees have been replaced by 2
previous awardees of the Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puraskar (i.e. non- sports
persons).
3) 1 nominee of Industry Associations has been added.
4) 2 Sports Administrators have been replaced by 2 State Government
Sports Secretaries.
Table V: Effect of the changes in the composition of the Selection
Committee for the Rashitriya Khel Protsahan Puruskar:
Sports Industry Government Total
persons (includes RKPP Representative Compositio
awardees as the s n
award is aimed
at industry)
Previous 1+5+4= 0 2+1+1+1=5 15
Proposed 0 2+1=3 1+2+1+1+1=6 9
Committee
35. The file notings (extracted below) show little or no explanation for the
change. There is only a bald recommendation by the Sports Secretary
proposing a change in the composition of the Selecting Committees. No
justification, howsoever cursory, is provided for the need to set up separate
Selection Committees for Dhyan Chand and RKPP or for the particular
composition of the proposed Committees that is so markedly different from
status quo ante. The relevant file notings are as below:
Secretary (Sports) on 02.02.11:
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 22
[Comment proposing increase of Arjuna Awards for the present year on
account of performance in CWG and Asian Games]
"2. The Selection Committee for the Dhyan Chand Award
(Lifetime achievement) and the Khel Protsahan Puraskar needs
to be separate from the Arjuna Awards / Khel Ratna Award.
[Marked as „A‟] May consider approving a Committee w/ reps
from Industry/ large PSUs/ Industry Chambers/ Distinguished
Citizens under the Chairmanship of Secy (Sports). [Marked as
„B‟]"
MoS (IC)/YAS on 03.02.11:
"1. I agree that there should be separate committees as
mentioned at „A‟ above.
2. As regards „B‟ above, apart from the categories
mentioned we should also involve representatives of Gold Quest
and Mittal Trust who are also doing a lot of talent spotting.
Kindly put up names for approval."
The Secretary (Sports) on 24.02.11
"Not recommended on the Jury. These entities are potential
candidates for the Award."
36. The records produced by MYAS thus show that the Union Secretary,
Department of Sports suggested a change in the Selection Committee for the
Dhyan Chand Award and the Puraskar on 02.02.2011. The inclusion of
representatives from the industry chambers, large public sector undertakings
and distinguished citizens was suggested. This was approved by the Minister
of State (Independent Charge), Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports on
03.02.2011, who also recommended the inclusion of representatives of
„Gold Quest and Mittal Trust‟. The inclusion of representatives of „Gold
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 23
Quest and Mittal Trust‟ was later withdrawn on 24.02.2011 as it was
realized that they could be potential candidates for the Puraskar. However,
there is nothing to indicate the reason for exclusion of Olympians/Arjuna
Awardees who were on the Selection Committee in terms of the previously
existing rules for the Puraskar. This Court notes that while the new Selection
Committee for the Dhyan Chand award included Olympians of eminence, no
such provision was made in the Committee for selecting Puraskar awardees.
37. Some other records produced by the MYAS relate to the
recommendations of the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Youth
Affairs and Sports for modifications in the weightage allotted to different
criteria for award in the category of "Community Sports - identification and
nurturing of budding/young talent" and the Selection Committee for the
same. Further, the recommendations in this regard were made on
17.08.2011, i.e. much after the Scheme for the Puraskar for 2011 had been
amended. These records, therefore, are relevant only insofar as the proposed
amendment to the Scheme for the Puraskar in 2012 is concerned and not for
2011.
38. The discussions evident from the records do not anywhere reveal the
justification or rationale for the alteration in composition of the Selection
Committee from 2009 to 2011 and the removal of eminent sportspersons
from the Committee. Although the representation of sports administrators
can be justified on the ground that the Puraskar, unlike Arjuna Award and
Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, is concerned with sports management and
contribution by non-sportspersons, i.e. administrators, donors, and others
who encourage sport in India, the total removal of eminent sportspersons
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 24
and past Olympians and former Arjuna Awardees from the Selection
Committee is inexplicable. The presence of sportspersons on the Selection
Committee is necessary to ensure that the nominees‟ contribution is not just
facially impressive but has genuinely led to promotion of sporting activity.
The inclusion of former recipients of the Puraskar is not sufficient, as such
former recipients would also be limited to sports administrators/donors and
other non-sportspersons. The composition thus reveals a total exclusion of
sportspersons and those who primarily use the facilities and engage in
sports- the promotion of which is claimed by nominees. The inclusion of
none from this category and their total exclusion -given the predominance of
such category in previous Committees (2009 and 2010) without any rhyme
or reason smacks of complete non-application of mind. To compound this
fallacy, the Scheme governing the Puraskar nowhere indicates any
mechanism whereby feedback of such sports persons, or at least users of the
facilities or those engaged in the concerned sports, is made available and
placed on the record.
39. Union of India and another v. International Trading Co & Anr,
(2003) 5 SCC 437, is a pertinent authority on the power of the executive to
change policies and the parameters governing such change. The Supreme
Court held as follows:
"15.While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the
executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is
wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article
14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not
give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on by any ulterior
criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of
every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 25
irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted
tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by
the state, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the
heart beat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of
judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly
for discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose.
The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is
more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether
the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately
answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic
and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is
any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action
and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness."
40. In Delhi Development Authority & Anr v. Joint Action Committee,
Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors, (2008) 2 SCC 672, similarly, it was observed
that:
"64. An executive order termed as a policy decision is not beyond
the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior courts may not
interfere with the nitty gritties of the policy, or substitute one by
the other but it will not be correct to contend that the court shall
like [sic keep] its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that
the impugned decision is a policy decision. Interference
therewith on the part of the superior court would not be without
jurisdiction as it is subject to judicial review..."
41. It is settled that every executive government, or agency of the
government is obliged to, while exercising discretion, take into
consideration only factors that are relevant and germane to the issue and
avoid irrelevant factors. If relevant considerations are ignored or irrelevant
considerations prevail - or irrelevant considerations enter the matrix of
decision making process, the ultimate decision is questionable. (Ref
Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, AIR 1987
SC 537 that "High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 26
226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the
Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly
exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy
decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on
irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and
materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such
discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been
conferred.").
42. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC
1277), the Supreme Court held that a repository of power acts ultra vires
either when it acts in excess of its powers in the narrow sense or it abuses its
power by acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or with gross
unreasonableness. In Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development
Corporation 1990 (3) SCC 280 it was held that "Looking for reasons in
support of such action provides an opportunity for an objective review in
appropriate cases both by the administrative superior and by the judicial
process."
43. The complete lack of reasons why the MYAS was of the opinion that
the change proposed by it should exclude from the Selection Committee
altogether the category of sportspersons- who dominated previous Selection
Committees, just before the process began in this case, is arbitrary. While
the executive is free to change its policy- given the need to optimize
efficiencies and gain from past experience, yet there should be some
rationale for the change. The reasons might not be in the form of an
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 27
elaborate explanation; they are not to be in the form of a "speaking order"
with detailed reasoning. Yet, change has to be preceded by exercise of
informed choice and due application of mind. Whether the pre-existing
structure, weighing heavily in favour of sportspersons distorted the
consideration of applicants in previous years, if so, in what instances; and
why their complete elimination from the new Committee for 2011 was
deemed expedient, are matters that should have found their way in the
official notes. The new committee is notable for the absence of any
sportsperson. Mere inclusion of past awardees, in the opinion of this court,
amounts to paying lip service to the cause sought to be served; such category
of persons or entities would be the same, i.e. institutions or donors. There
would be an element of self-congratulation involved because if one
institution or individual does not secure the award in a given year, the others
might ensure that it gets the award in the coming year. For these reasons, it
is held that the decision to so change the composition of the Selection
Committee was arbitrary and unsustainable.
IV: Was the selection contrary to law on account of conflict and bias?
44. The Petitioners have also alleged that the selection of Respondent No.
5 was in violation of Rule 7.6 of the Scheme for the Puraskar as Mrs.
Shantini Kapoor - Principal Secretary, YWSDD - had prior knowledge of
the academy in her present position as well as Member Secretary, SDAT
(Respondent No. 3) in 2011. In response, Respondent No. 1 has submitted
that Mrs. Shantini Kapoor was absent in the meetings of the Selection
Committee that decided on the Puraskar awardees. Based on the records
produced by the MYAS, this Court accepts its contention and holds that
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 28
there was no infirmity in the selection of Respondent No. 5 inasmuch as
Rule 7.6 of the Scheme is concerned. Rule 7.6 disqualifies interested
members of the Selection Committee from participating in deliberations
concerning only that entity in which the member has an interest. Since Mrs.
Shantini Kapoor did not participate in the meetings of the Selection
Committee held on 26.07.2011 and 11.08.2011 where the fifth Respondent‟s
nomination was discussed, we do not find any irregularity.
V: Selection of fifth Respondent as the Puraskar Awardee
45. At the outset, it would be essential to recollect the parameters of
judicial review in such cases. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. v.
Netaji Cricket Club and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 741 is a judgment where the
Supreme Court considered the duties of the Board of Cricket Control for
India- a registered society, which regulates cricket in India and represents
the sport in the country in the international regulatory body, i.e. International
Cricket Council (ICC), and underlined its public functions and spelt out its
obligations to act fairly and in good faith:
"As a member of ICC, it represents the country in the
international fora. It exercises enormous public functions. It has
the authority to select players, umpires and officials to represent
the country in the international fora. It exercises total control
over the players, umpires and other officers. The Rules of the
Board clearly demonstrate that without its recognition no
competitive cricket can be hosted either within or outside the
country. Its control over the sport of competitive cricket is deeply
pervasive and complete.
81. In law, there cannot be any dispute that having regard to the
enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow
the doctrine of "fairness" and "good faith" in all its activities.
Having regard to the fact that it has to fulfil the hopes and
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 29
aspirations of millions, it has a duty to act reasonably. It cannot
act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. As the Board
controls the profession of cricketers, its actions are required to
be judged and viewed by higher standards."
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 649 is
an authority for the proposition that though the BCCI is not "State" within
the expression under Article 12 of the Constitution, in appropriate cases,
given the nature of its public functions, Article 226 can be invoked:
"31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does
discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket
team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved
in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to
public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of
any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other
citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a
petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator
of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a
State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just
remedy for the violation of a right of a citizen. Under the Indian
jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the violation of a
right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not
available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under
the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, which is much wider than Article
32."
These observations were reiterated recently in Board of Cricket Control for
Cricket in India v . Cricket Association of Bihar 2015 SCC OnLine SC 60,
(decided on 22.01.2015). Dealing specifically with an amendment (to
Regulation 6.2.4 of the BCCI Regulations for Players, Team Officials,
Managers, Umpires and Administrators) that excepted the Indian Premier
League (IPL) from the rigours of the condition that no entity, administrator,
official player or umpire could have any direct or indirect commercial
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 30
interest in the matches or events conducted by the board, the court observed
that the amendment negated the resolves of the BCCI by permitting
situations in which conflict of interest would grossly erode the confidence of
the people in the authenticity, purity and integrity of the game (Para 90).
46. In this case, the Selection Committee was concededly performing a
public function for the MYAS in deciding which organization or individual
merited the Puraskar. At the outset, while scrutinizing its selection- this
Court notices that though the award amount was not substantial, the
importance of the task assigned to the Committee could not be undermined.
Given the fact that sports funding is substantial by the Central Government,
due importance to proper scrutiny of claims by various applicants was
essential. This court is conscious of its limited role; it cannot substitute the
opinion of the empowered body, i.e. the Selection Committee. Centre for
Public Interest Litigation and Anr v. Union of India & Anr, (2011) 4 SCC 1
is authority for the proposition that the court, in judicial review cannot
undertake a „merits review‟ of the decision. Yet, it can examine if the
recommending or expert body took relevant factors into consideration and
did not ignore or overlook anything material, or if its decision was based on
any irrelevant consideration, or if there was non-application of mind. Thus,
it was held that the High Power Committee (which in that case was tasked
with recommending a candidate for the post of Central Vigilance
Commissioner) was duty bound to consider all relevant facts:
"While making recommendations, the criteria of the candidate
being a public servant or a civil servant in the past is not the sole
consideration. The HPC has to look at the record and take into
consideration whether the candidate would or would not be able
to function as a Central Vigilance Commissioner. Whether the
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 31
institutional competency would be adversely affected by pending
proceedings and if by that touchstone the candidate stands
disqualified then it shall be the duty of the HPC not to
recommend such a candidate..."
47. As to the scope and nature of review, the Court held that the merits of
the decision cannot be gone into in judicial review:
"We reiterate that Government is not accountable to the courts
for the choice made but Government is accountable to the courts
in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when
impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction. We do not wish
to multiply the authorities on this point..."
Another relevant decision on the subject is Rajesh Awasthi v. Nandlal
Jaiswal 2013 (1) SCC 501 which examined the appointment to the
Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003; the
relevant provision (Section 84 (1)) stated that the Chairperson and members
"shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing who have adequate
knowledge of, and have shown capacity in, dealing with problems relating to
engineering, finance, commerce, economics, law or management." The High
Court had after considering the minutes of the Selection Committee as well
as the bio data, concluded that the statutory requirements had not been
fulfilled. Repelling the appellant's contention of judicial review overreach,
the Supreme Court held that judicial review remedy is available to highlight
breach of statutory provisions, which might expose the public office holder
to the charge of being a pretender to it. Dipak Misra, J, who delivered a
concurring judgment, emphasized the necessity of adhering to the statute,
and most crucially, the necessity of intellectual objectivity, which is to be
brought to bear while considering the candidature of individuals:
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 32
"25. It is manifest in the selection of the appellant that there is
absence of "intellectual objectivity" in the decision making
process. It is to be kept in mind a constructive intellect brings in
good rationale and reflects conscious exercise of conferred
power. A selection process of this nature has to reflect a
combined effect of intellect and industry. It is because when there
is a combination of the two, the recommendations as used in the
provision not only serves the purpose of a "lamp in the study" but
also as a "light house" which is shining, clear and transparent. "
48. It is with the above understanding of law that this Court has to now
proceed to examine the process of award of Puraskar to the fifth
Respondent, within the narrow confines of judicial review available in such
matters. The Petitioners allege that the fifth Respondent‟s nomination (by
the 3rd Respondent, dated 28.04.2011) for the Puraskar was forwarded by
the Tamil Nadu Government on 6th May and received by MYAS on
09.05.2011, well after the due date of 02.05.2011. MYAS‟s explanation is
that two applications - one through SRFI and another through the third
Respondent, YWSDD were received. It is the latter which was received on
09.05.2011 while the application through SRFI (also dated 28.04.2011) was
received on 29.04.2011. From the records produced by MYAS, its
contention appears to be correct and justified.
49. On 27.07.2011, the Under Secretary, MYAS wrote to the Secretary
General, SRFI stating that Mr. Ramachandran, the fifth Respondent, had
been short listed for the Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puraskar, 2011, and
requested for details of the financial contributions made by him in the
establishment and management of the three academies mentioned in the
application. On 30.07.2011, the Secretary General, SRFI replied as follows:
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 33
"Funds contributed by Mr. N. Ramachandran to the Academies
The Indian Squash Academy and the Triathlon Academy were
established in the year 2000 at Nehru Park on land leased by the
Government of Tamil Nadu- Sports Development Authority of
Tamilnadu. The academies were established under the 50-50
scheme of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports Government of
India. The contribution of the Federation of 50% was organised
by Mr. N. Ramachandran and his associate companies to the
tune of Rs. 5 Crores. The total construction area for both squash
and triathlon along with a 25m short course Olympic swimming
pool works out to approximately 30,0000 sq ft and at a averaged
cost of Rs. 1000 per sq ft this works out to 3 crores. This along
with imported equipments/ other accessories (Rs 2 Crores) works
out to a approximate total of 5 crores for the infrastructure,
Apart from this the running expenses of approximately Rs 75
Lakhs per year was met by Mr.Ramachandran and his associate
companies. For the last 10 years this works out to Rs.7.5 Crores.
......... ......... .........
As a result the expenditure in running the Academy has also
increased. MR. Ramachandran over the last two years has
contributed more than 2 crores in the development of the sport.
We enclose a certificate confirmed the amount given by
Mr.N.Ramachandran and his owned companies for the
development of squash for the last two years
As squash gained popularity it was necessary to establish
Academies at many more centres. To begin with it was decided to
establish a Squash Academy at Salem a District in Tamil Nadu.
Mr.Ramachandran with the help of his friends raised funds to the
extent of 50 Lakhs to build two state of the art courts in
Salem...Mr.Ramachandran with his Friends and Associate‟s are
spending close to a lakh of rupees per month on running this
facility."
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 34
50. In support of this letter, the Secretary General provided a certificate
dated 29.07.2011
"that an amount of Rs. 2,08,50,000/- (Two Crores Eight Lakhs
and Fifty thousand only) has been contributed to The Indian
Squash Academy, by Shri N Ramachandran, and his Companies
for the Development of Squash in the Last Two years."
51. The Squash Rackets Federation of India claimed on behalf of the fifth
Respondent that he, and through his „associate companies‟,contributed ₹
75 lacs per year just on running expenses. While we find the total figure of ₹
15 Crores incredulous, it will be enough to simply examine the contribution
that has been explicitly certified at the value of ₹ 2.08 crores for the past two
years.
52. We have at hand, balance sheets for the FY 2008-09 and 2009-10 that
were submitted to the Selection Committee as part of the fifth Respondent‟s
application. Certified by Venkat & Rangaa, Chartered Accountants on
03.06.2010, the total liabilities and assets are balanced for FY 2008-09 as ₹
2,71,15,187 and that for 2009-10 as ₹ 2,79,64,273. Expenditure for the two
years are ₹ 78,19,918.17 and ₹ 1,98,05,690.5 respectively. It is said that the
fifth respondent provided for at least ₹ 2.08 crores out of this total of ₹
5,50,79,460 in two years. A perusal of the balance sheet says otherwise. The
following is the statement of Income and Expenditure for the years 2008-09
and 2009-10, as condensed into subcategories:
Squash Rackets Federation of India
TABLE I: Income (In Rupees, ignoring paise)
Heads Years
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 35
31.03.2009 31.03.2010
Donation Received+ Affiliation Fees+ World
Squash Day Revenue+ Contribution to Sports
Development 1,25,000/- 22,02,100/-
Grant in Aid 33,88,324/- 14,69,087/-
Grant from Organising Committee
CWG 2010 3,74,921/-
Grant in Aid for Preparation of Indian
Team for CWG 2010 15,00,687/- 1,53,35,691/-
Interest 61,250/- 11,003/-
Sponsorship Received 13,00,000/-
Entry Fees 1,24,027/-
Excess of Expenditure over Income 13,20,629/- 4,12,888/-
Total 78,19,918/- 1,98,05,690/-
TABLE II: Expenditure (In Rupees, ignoring paise)
Heads Years
31.03.2009 31.03.2010
Bank Charges+ Audit Fees+ Certification 15,300/- 34,163/-
Fees
Grant under Scheme Assistance to National
Federation 45,58,867/ 14,69,087/-
-
Federation Cost 17,42,013/-
Grant in Aid for Preparation of Indian Team 15,00,687/ 1,46,05,214/-
for CWG 2010 -
Federation Cost 1,58,715/- 3,09,184/-
Grant from Organising Committee 3,74,921/-
CWG 2010
Federation Cost 20,608/-
Other Expense 15,86,348/ 12,50,500/-
(without overarching categorisation) -
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 36
Total 78,19,918/ 1,98,05,690/-
53. As is immediately apparent, the lion‟s share of the income is in the
form of grants that have been provided for various tournaments. The grants
for 2008-09 comprise of grant in aid (₹ 33,88,324/-) and grant for
preparation of Indian Team for CWG (₹ 15,00,687/-), totalling to ₹
48,89,011/-. The grant in aid for 2009-10 comprises of grant in aid (₹
14,69,087/-), grant from the CWG Organising Committee (₹ 3,74,921/-) and
grant for preparation of Indian Team for CWG (₹1,53,35,691/-), totalling to
₹ 1,71,79,699/-. Naturally, this money cannot be attributed to the fifth
Respondent by any stretch of mind. The only income that can be attributed
to a private party is ₹ 17,50,000/- that is recorded in 2009-10 under
„donation received‟.
54. The expenditure‟s page tells a similar story. Payments made from 3
Grants are ₹ 45,58,867/-; ₹ 15,00,687/-; ₹ 0 for 2008-09 and ₹ 14,69,087/-
; ₹ 1,46,05,214/-; ₹ 3,74,921/- for 2009-10 respectively. The „Federation
Cost‟ is quantified at a paltry ₹ 1,58,715/- for 2008-09, and ₹ 20,71,805/-
(i.e. ₹17,42,013/- + 3,09,184/- + 20,608/-) for 2009-10.
55. Of the total expenditure of ₹ 78,19,918/- in 2008-09, and ₹
1,98,05,690/- in 2009-10, this court notes, that money from grants was
responsible for payment of at least ₹ 60,59,554/- (being 45,58,867/- +
15,00,687/-) in 2008-09 and at least ₹ 1,64,49,222/- (being 14,69,087/- +
1,46,05,214/- + 3,74,921/-) in 2009-10. It is difficult to accept that the
Respondent Ministry could have believed that ₹ 2.08 crores was provided
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 37
by the fifth Respondent and his associates or associate group companies
over 2 years or that they have spent ₹ 75 lakhs just in maintenance
expenditure on average each year.
56. Curiously there is no record of expenditure or payment made in terms
of any maintenance/ electricity bills/ salaries for the coaches that have been
hired- things that ought to have been recorded. While things such as
stationery and the like are mentioned, the amounts are a pittance.
Subsequent Improvements
57. A certificate that was provided by the same CAs Venkat & Ranga on
28.04.2011, has been produced and Annexed as R-1 by the MYAS as part of
its affidavit in the course of these writ proceedings, but is not to be found
anywhere in the record of the files produced by the Ministry. This certificate
states that "amounts have been funded by Shri N. Ramachandran from his
account as well as from the accounts of Companies under his management
where he holds Directorship and substantial share holdings to the Tamil
Nadu Squash Rackets Association and the Squash Racket Federation of
India by way of Donation/Corpus Fund/Contribution towards the
development of Squash for the year ended 31st March 2010 and 31st March
2011...":
"VENKAT & RANGAA
Chartered Accountants
CERTIFICATE
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 38
This is to certify that the following amounts have been funded by Shri
N. Ramachandran from his account as well as from the accounts of
Companies under his management where he holds Directorship and
substantial share holdings to the Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Association
and The Squash Rackets Federation of India by way of Donation/Corpus
Fund/Contribution towards the development of Squash for the year ended
31st March 2010 and 31st March 2011 as per the details given below:
FUNDS RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS OF TAMIL NADU SQUASH
RACKETS ASSOCIATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010
Amount Amount
Rs. Rs.
By way of Corpus Fund 87,50,000
By way of Contribution to Sports Development 3,50,000 91,00,000
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2011
By way of Donation 31,00,000
By way of Contribution to Sports Development 5,00,000 36,00,000
FUNDS RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SQUASH RACKETS
FEDERATION OF INDIA
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010
Amount Amount
Rs. Rs.
By way of Donation 17,50,00
By way of Corpus Fund 60,00,00
By way of Contribution to Sports Development 3,00,000 80,50,000
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2011
By way of Donation 11,75,00 11,75,000
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 39
TOTAL (Details as per Annexure) 2,19,25,00
This Certificate is issued based on the examination of books and accounts of
M/s. Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Association and M/s. The Squash Rackets
Federation of India, and information and explanation furnished.
Date: 28th April 2011
Place: Chennai-35"
58. The detailed breakdown of the funds is provided in the annexure to
the certificate
"ANNEXURE
TAMIL NADU SQUASH RACKETS ASSOCIATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st MARCH 2010
Amount Amount
Rs. Rs.
Corpus Fund:
From M/s. EWS Finance & Investments P Ltd. 70,00,000
From Mr. N. Ramachandran 17,50,000 87,50,000
Contribution to Sports Development:
From Mr. N. Ramachandran 3,50,000
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH 2011
Donation
From Mr. N. Ramachandran 7,50,000
From M/s. Results Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11,50,000
From M/s. Birdie Investments (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. 6,50,000
From M/s. Babli Holdings P. Ltd. 5,50,000 31,00,000
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 40
Contribution to Sports Development
From Mr. N. Ramachandran 5,00,000
THE SQUASH RACKETS FEDERATION OF INDIA
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH 2010
Donation
From Mr. N. Ramachandran 17,50,000
Corpus Fund:
From M/s. EWS Finance & Investments P. Ltd. 60,00,000
Contribution to Sports Development:
From Mr. N. Ramachandran 3,00,000
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH 2011
Donation:
From M/s. Birdie Investments (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. 9,25,000
From M/s. Babli Holdings P. Ltd. 2,50,000 11,75,000
TOTAL 2,19,25,00
"
A total of ₹ 2,19,25,000 is therefore said to have been paid by the fifth
Respondent and his associates between 2009-11 to two entities- the Tamil
Nadu Squash Rackets Association (₹ 1,27,00,000) and the Squash Rackets
Federation of India (₹ 92,25,000).
59. The following clear inferences can be made in this regard:
(1) In the original application that was received by the Ministry, only the
balance sheet of SRFI dated 03.06.2010 has been annexed, alongwith a
certificate dated 29.07.2011 from its Secretary showing receipt of
approximately ₹ 2.08 crores towards the Indian Squash Academy from the
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 41
fifth Respondent for the FY 2008-09 and 2009-10.- there is no mention
about the Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Association at all, nor is there any
additional certificate from the CAs.
(2) The CA‟s 2011 certificate pertains to amounts paid to two entities- the
Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Association (₹ 1,27,00,000) and the Squash
Rackets Federation of India (₹ 92,25,000). This certificate therefore varies
both in terms of the beneficiaries of the fifth Respondent‟s largesse (TNSRA
& SRFI, as opposed to the Indian Squash Academy initially) and the
amounts that they received (SRFI received ₹ 92,25,000 according to the
CA‟s certificate, but the SRFI certificate states that ISA received ₹ 2.08
crores). There is a commingling of entities by all concerned.
(3) The consideration was of the application recommended by the
Government of Tamil Nadu (received by the Central Government, MYAS
on 29th April 2011) as is evident from the reply to the RTI query by the
MYAS (dated 14-10-2011). This can be seen by reply to Para XIV of the
MYAS‟ affidavit (sworn to by Mr. S.P.S Tomar). Importantly, the RTI reply
itself states that "Shri Ramachandran‟s application was nominated by the
Government of Tamil Nadu". This is further borne from the fact that
Selection for the award/Puraskar by the Selection Committee, dated
11.08.2011 attaches a copy of the nomination form recommended by the
Tamil Nadu Government, not recommended by the Secretary General of the
SRFI (Srivatsan Subramaniam).
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 42
(4) The CA‟s 2011 certificate pertains to the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, but
the documents attached in the original application pertain to the years 2008-
09 and 2009-10.
(5) As such, the only documents that the Selection Committee relied upon
while making its decision were those submitted to the Ministry at the time of
the original application. The CA‟s certificate dated 28.04.2011 is making its
appearance for the first time as Annexure R-1 to the Under-Secretary S.P.S.
Tomar‟s affidavit. In the absence of any document from the CAs pertaining
to 2010-11, the only documents that the committee had to ascertain Mr.
Ramachandran‟s contributions were 1) a bald certificate dated 29.07.2011
from SRFI stating that he had contributed ₹ 2.08 crores over the past two
years 2) a letter from SRFI dated 30.07.2011 extracted above, and 3) the
SRFI‟s balance sheet certified on 03.06.2010 by the CAs Venkat & Rangaa
for the FY 2008-10.
60. Thus, on the basis of the balance sheet dated 03.06.2010, no Selection
Committee could have believed that ₹ 2.08 crores was contributed by the
fifth Respondent or that that an average yearly maintenance of ₹ 75 lacs was
being shouldered by him.
61. There are other features which the court can discern from the material
placed on the official record:
(a) Squash Academy and Triathlon Academy are in the same campus.
(b) All infrastructure that has been detailed is with regard to only the
Chennai campus (squash and Triathlon Academy); no data
concerning Salem, except for the note that the India Squash
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 43
Academy has a branch in Salem, and that one player who has won
nationals is a product of that category.
(c) It is not clear as to who the Chartered Accountant firm worked for-
i.e. SRFI, or the fifth Respondent.
62. In the light of the above analysis it would now be relevant to consider
the MYAS contention that the requirement of having to contribute at least ₹
2 crores/ 5% of an individual‟s total income towards promotion and
development of sports is not fatal to the fifth Respondent‟s selection for the
Puraskar. Rule 4 of the Scheme for 2011, which provides for eligibility,
reads as follows:
"4. ELIGIBILITY
4.1 Any corporate entity, public or private, that has played a
visible role in the area of sports promotion and development.
Individuals/proprietary/partnership entities which have done
commendable work in this area will also be considered under
this scheme. The entities which have contributed a minimum of
5% of their gross profit or an amount not less than Rs.2 crore in
the preceding financial year towards sports promotion and
development will be eligible to be considered for the above
categories of the awards. Outlays meant purely for commercial
purposes will not be counted towards this contribution. Similarly,
outlays towards sports business ventures will also not be
counted. In other words, only contributions of non-commercial
nature as part of corporate social responsibility will be
considered for assessing the contribution made by the corporate
concerned, towards the promotion and development of sports in
the country."
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 44
63. Financial contribution is a criterion for eligibility for „entities‟.
Therefore, the issue that arises is whether „individuals‟ can be said to be
included in „entities‟ in the aforesaid provision. Broadly, the rule suggests
that two different classes of applicants may be eligible for the Puraskar: (a) a
corporate entity that has played a visible role in the area of sports promotion
and development; (b) individuals/proprietary/partnership entities which have
done commendable work in this area. The respondents submit that the
requirement of financial contribution of ₹ 2 crore/ 5% of gross profit is an
additional one for „entities‟ and not „individuals/proprietary/partnership‟.
This submission is on the footing that the precondition (of ₹ 2 crores
contribution) cannot be read as a suffix to „individuals‟ as the term
„individuals entities‟ would be incorrect. Therefore, it would apply only to
„partnership entities‟ or „proprietary entities‟. The further submission is that
the subsequent wording of Rule 4.1, states "only contributions of non-
commercial nature as part of corporate social responsibility will be
considered". The last argument is that the reference to corporate social
responsibility can apply to organisations, not individuals, and therefore
financial contributions are not to be determinative for the consideration of
individuals.
64. If one looks at the entirety of the scheme, it is apparent that financial
contribution plays a significant part in considering the role played by the
nominated applicant. The Puraskar has four different awards: (i) community
sports- identification and nurturing of budding/young talent; (ii) Financial
support for sports excellence; (iii) Establishment and management of sports
academies of excellence; (iv) employment of sports persons and other sports
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 45
welfare measures. Each of these categories or classes has a common factor-
tangible or visible support towards institution building and monetary
contribution. In the second category (ii) financial support is directly
involved. If this is to be considered together with Para 4.1 (Eligibility
condition) in entirety, there can be no distinction between corporate entities,
other association of persons (partnership firms) or individuals. In other
words, for category (ii) the nature of financial support envisioned is
identical, without reference to whether the applicant is a company or
partnership or an individual. Likewise, in the case of the other three
categories, the degree of contribution towards institution building requires a
baseline level of financial commitment. It cannot be anyone‟s case that a
partnership firm cannot be responsible for financially committing over two
crores if it comprises sports enthusiasts, or that individuals cannot do that.
Therefore, the only obvious and clearly spelt out criteria under the scheme
uniformly applies to all categories of awards- i.e. minimum contribution of ₹
2 crores. The contributions and outlays which are not to be considered for
the purpose of the award are commercial outlays and outlays for sports
businesses. The reference to contributions made for corporate social
responsibility would apply only where the category warrants it, i.e. if the
applicant is a company. The allusion to that condition, in the opinion of the
court cannot rule out the application of the basic qualifying criteria ₹ 2 crore
contribution, by partnerships and individuals. Seen contrarily, if the said
criteria is held to be inapplicable to individuals, there is no discernible
criteria for awarding the Puraskar in such cases. Widest latitude would be
available to each Selection Committee, which would then be free to judge
individuals and partnership‟s applications by entirely different standards
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 46
from that of companies and such like entities. That invites the odium of
discriminatory application of the same set of norms. This Court notices that
one of the criteria for selection of an awardee in the subject category is
„Total expenditure incurred for the establishment of academy‟. Therefore, it
cannot be argued that contribution to the extent of ₹ 2 crore/5% of gross
profit is not a pre-condition for the grant of the Puraskar to individuals.
65. The MYAS states that the financial precondition was inapplicable.
However, the application which was finally considered- which is part of the
official file and annexed to the Selection Committee‟s deliberations of 11-
08-2011- contain only the documents originally filed with the application
recommended by the Tamil Nadu Government. This, in turn did not annex
or enclose anything worthwhile. The MYAS therefore wrote a letter (to the
SRFI) asking it what were the financial contributions of the fifth respondent-
by a letter dated 27th July, 2011 (which appears in the MYAS file). The said
letter, at page 36 of the official file, inter alia, reads as follows:
"...It is requested that the details of financial contributions made
by Shri. N. Ramachandran in the establishment and management
of of the academies mentioned in the application may please be
sent to this Department immediately and let us by 1 st August
2011."
In response, the SRFI wrote back on 30th July, 2011 stating that the Squash
and Triathlon Academy were established in 2000 on land leased by the TN
Government under the 50-50 scheme of the MYAS. It was stated that the
contribution of SRFI was organized by the fifth Respondent "and his
associate companies to the tune of Rs 5 crores. The total construction area
for both squash and triathlon along with a 25m short course Olympic
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 47
swimming pool works out to approximately 30,000 sq feet and at a averaged
cost of Rs. 1000 per sq ft this works out to 3 crores. This along with
imported equipments/ other accessories (Rs 2 crores) works out to a
approximate total of 5 crores for the infrastructure. Apart from this the
running expenses of approximately Rs 75 Lakhs per year was met by Mr.
Ramachandran and his associate companies. For the last 10 years this
works out to Rs. 7.5 Crores..". The letter also annexes a certificate issued by
the SRFI itself that an amount of ₹ 2,08,50,000/- "has been contributed to
The Indian Squash Academy, by Shri N Ramachandran, and his Companies
for the Development of Squash in the Last Two years."
66. The overall picture which emerges from this correspondence and the
response, is that both MYAS and the fifth Respondent, as well as the SRFI
understood and interpreted clause 4.1 as requiring the contribution of even
individuals to be at the same level (₹ 2 crores) or at par with companies and
"entities". The subsequent volte face in the affidavit of Shri Tomar, and the
fifth Respondent, therefore is of no avail.
67. The entire application nominating the fifth Respondent, and the
manner it was pursued paints a curious sight. If indeed, it was the SFRI‟s
contribution which was to be considered, nothing prevented the organization
from seeking the nomination. This would have been understandable
considering that the Academy itself was funded- substantially at least by the
MYAS and land was allotted to it. Furthermore, if indeed contributions had
been made by the fifth Respondent, as is claimed now, the most appropriate
documents to support that would have been his income tax returns or his
personal balance sheets reflecting such contributions (to the tune of ₹ 75
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 48
lakhs annually). Likewise, any contribution made by a group company at the
behest of the fifth Respondent would have been documented in its (such
company‟s) returns/ balance sheets, where it would have claimed donations
and possibly even tax benefits. No such documents are forthcoming; even
the names of such contributing companies, or their certificates stating that
the amounts were paid at the behest of the fifth Respondent, were produced.
The version of the fifth Respondent- as indeed the SRFI- could not have
been accepted at face value. In these conspectus of circumstances and the
state of the official record, the court is constrained to conclude that the tall
or fanciful claims were given uncritical credulity by the Selection
Committee, which proceeded to accept the application and recommend the
fifth respondent for the Puraskar.
68. The decision to award the Puraskar - and the awarding of it
subsequently is vitiated by non-application of mind. The material on record
showed:
(1) funding by way of substantial grants to the Squash Rackets Federation
of India;
(2) structured grants for specific purpose (training for Commonwealth
Games and other expenses);
(3) The land on which the SRFI facility was built belonged to the Tamil
Nadu government;
(4) There was no information regarding infrastructure funding (building,
equipment, purchase, etc.) covering SRFI or the fifth Respondent‟s role;
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 49
(5) No information with respect to any routine expenditure of SRFI - i.e.
maintenance, expenses, salary, coaching fee, electricity, etc, which was
supposedly by the fifth Respondent;
(6) The claims of fifth Respondent were never verified - for instance,
whether he actually contributed ₹ 75 lakh annually, personally or through
group companies and if so particulars regarding such entities and supportive
documents.
(7) The lack of any precision or clarity with respect to the funding and the
expenditure defrayed to various entities, such as the Squash Rackets
Federation of India, the Tamil Nadu Squash Rackets Academy and the India
Squash Association. To add to the confusion, the Indian Triathlon
establishment has also been kept in the same complex where the facility for
which credit was initially sought by the fifth Respondent, is located. What
was actually enclosed with the application (recommended by the Tamil
Nadu government) were documents such as balance sheet, income and
expenditure, list of assets and liabilities etc. pertaining to the Squash Rackets
Federation alone. No document pertaining to the specifics with respect to the
contributions received from the fifth Respondent, either monetary support or
endorsements channelized by him through companies or any supportive
material in this regard was placed on the record.
69. Each of the above were relevant facts required some degree of
scrutiny. Also, the Selection Committee did not disclose why the claim of
the fifth respondent for successes in Squash was attributable to him, and not
the SRFI. This was important given that an individual was being selected for
the Puraskar the first time. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that the
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 50
approach of the Committee appeared to be of genial camaraderie and affinity
with the fifth respondent - more akin to "well we have heard good things
about him, so there is no harm in recommending his name (for the
Puraskar)"
70. The objective for the establishment of Puraskar and awarding is to
achieve the larger goal of sports promotion in India. India spends over ₹ 600
crores annually in funding sports schemes and organizations (revised
estimate for 2012-2013 being ₹ 659 crores; for 2010-2011 (estimates) being
₹ 3565- of which ₹ 2067 crores was for Commonwealth Games and ₹ 3709
crores for 2009-10 - of which the spending for Commonwealth Games was
₹ 2883 crores). It is the largest patron in the country, providing direct
subsidies by way of grants, special schemes for spotting talent, creation of
infrastructure, giving indirect encouragement such as customs duty
exemptions for import of equipment, building stadia, bearing air fare and
other expenditure. The use of these funds is a matter of public concern. If, in
such utilization, infrastructure is created, for which an organization is to be
credited with innovation, optimal use, or maximization of resource creation
of some facility which can enable excellence in some sport for which awards
are to be given, the body recommending the individual or organization has
to carry out its task with seriousness. The monetary terms of the award may
be unimportant; however, the recognition and honour bestowed on the
organization is official certification of the fact.
71. The manner in which the whole selection took place, with respect to
the fifth Respondent not only reveals a casual and uncritical acceptance of
whatever was and offered by the applicant, but also exemplifies what is
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 51
wrong in such matters in Indian sports. Sportspersons and where they
function and the general public they entertain, are a world apart, it so seems
from the world of sports administrators! This disconnect is deeply thrown up
in sharp relief in the facts of the present case where regardless of the facility
which was claimed to have been developed, the ultimate user, i.e. the squash
players/coach etc. had no voice in the selection of Puraskar or its awarding.
It may well be that the fifth Respondent was a pioneer and had actually
contributed to the development of squash in the country. Equally, it is
possible that the claims put forward by him was not borne out and were
highly exaggerated. Yet claims for the grant of such Puraskar cannot be
dealt with in the manner that was done by the Selection Committee in the
present case. The total disregard to the voices of squash players - past or
present, and the squash coaches - past or present - in the opinion of this
Court, was an insult to the sport. No attempt to secure some form of
feedback from the users, or ask for tangible materials, apart from what was
given, was made by the Selection Committee or the Central Government.
Even the complaints which were given post announcement, were merely
referred back to the fifth Respondent. All these show at best a casual mind;
at worst, they betray some kind of premeditated determination to somehow
go ahead and confer the Puraskar.
72. Undoubtedly, the encouragement of a sport like squash requires to be
rewarded. May be the kind of Committee which selects sportspersons per se
should differ from those who contribute to sports development, yet they
cannot be two worlds apart. The present case demonstrates how the
outcomes can vary and differ completely if the most relevant individuals, i.e.
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 52
sportspersons are kept out of the selection process itself and most
importantly, where the body tasked with the job of selection does not ask the
relevant questions or ignores to inform itself about fundamental issues such
as proper verification of the claims made by an applicant seeking the
Puraskar. This court therefore holds that the award of Puraskar to the fifth
Respondent was finalized without a proper inquiry and proper application of
mind; no attempt to verify the claims of achievement of the fifth Respondent
were seriously made. The said decision, based on the Selection Committee‟s
recommendation, is therefore unsupportable in law.
Conclusions
73. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that - first, the
exclusion of eminent sportspersons from the Selection Committee of the
Puraskar was without any basis; and directs the first Respondent to make
appropriate provisions for the same in the Scheme of the Puraskar for 2016.
The Petitioners‟ challenge to the grant of the Puraskar for 2011 in the
category of „Establishment and Management of sports academies of
excellence‟ has to succeed; the first three respondents are hereby directed to
pass consequential orders, revoking the grant of Puraskar to the fifth
Respondent, within four weeks from today. The writ petition is consequently
allowed in the above terms. No costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 31, 2015/ajk
W.P.(C) 2989/2013 Page 53
