Delhi High Court
Churchill Brothers Sports Club ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 16 January, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 519/2015 and CM No.879/2015 (stay)
CHURCHILL BROTHERS SPORTS
CLUB PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohan Parasaran,Sr.Advocate with
Dr. Harsh Pathak, Mrs.Shweta Pathak, Ms.
Gurveen Dhaliwal, Mr.Siddhartha Shukla,
Mr.Shailendra Sharma, Mr. Ashwin Kumar,
Mr.Varun Sharma and Mr. Srikanth Srinivas,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Saurabh Kirpal, Mr. Pranthosh Mishra, Mr. Yojna
Goyal and Ms. Varsha Lakhani, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 16.01.2015
1. This is a second round of litigation. In the first round, the
petitioners had approached this court by way of a writ petition under
Article 226 against the order of the Club Licensing Appellate Body
(CLAB). This writ petition was numbered as : WP(C) 5471/2014.
1.1 This court vide order dated 24.12.2014 passed the following
operative directions, on a concession given by respondent no.2 to
constitute the CLAB in accordance with the regulations as
expeditiously as possible :-
W.P.(C) 519/2015 page 1 of 5
"..Be that as it may, the CLAB may consider the appeal
dated 26.05.2014 filed by the Petitioner and Respondent
no.2 agrees to constitute the CLAB in accordance with the
Regulations, as expeditiously as possible. The CLAB
without getting influenced by the order dated 03.06.2014
will hear the appeal afresh and decide the same preferably
not later than 12th January, 2015. It is also made clear that
this order will not be treated as an expression of any
opinion by the court on the merits of the petition. It is
clarified that all contentions of parties are kept open.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states
that the affidavits filed by the petitioner on 16.12.2014
and 18.12.2014 have not been traversed and should not
form a part of this Court's record. In this regard, it is
clarified that since no opportunity to traverse those
affidavits was granted to the respondents, the same cannot
be read as admitted by the respondents.
In view of the above, the petition and the applications
stand disposed of..."
2. Pursuant to the directions, the impugned order, has been passed
by the CLAB, which is, dated 14.01.2015. A perusal of the impugned
order would show that the CLAB has examined, it appears, various
deficiencies with regard to whether or not the petitioner herein
fulfilled the criteria prescribed for "A Grade" categorisation. The
discussion with regard to the same is contained in paragraphs 7 to 13
of the impugned order.
2.1 Suffice it to say, that according to the CLAB, there were
several deficiencies found in the area of : security, non provisioning
of a Medical Doctor, Stewards, submission of annual financial
W.P.(C) 519/2015 page 2 of 5
statements, "no payables overdue towards football clubs" as also
criteria pertaining to "no payables overdue towards employees" and
social tax authorities. The CLAB, inter alia, also came to the
conclusion that a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs (approx), is owed to players.
3. Mr. Parasaran, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
contended that CLAB did not consider the writ petitioner's
representation and submissions made before it. It is, in particular, Mr.
Parasaran's submission that the ground raised before the CLAB, that
the "core process" (as delineated in the Indian Club Licensing
Regulations), was not followed, is not dealt with. Mr. Parasaran,
specifically, referred to Regulations 4, 5, 6, 19 and A in this behalf.
3.1 It is further contended by Mr. Parasaran that the CLAB has not
considered the submission of the writ petitioner that the order-in-
original, which was passed by the Club Licensing Committee (CLC),
was not a reasoned order, and that, no opportunity, of hearing was
given in the matter.
3.2 It is Mr. Parasaran's submission that the CLAB reduced itself
to an original authority depriving the writ petitioner of an effective
appeal in the matter.
4. Mr. Kapur, the learned senior counsel for respondent no.2, on
the other hand, says that in the first instance, when an appeal was
filed, the writ petitioner had in fact accepted that the financial criteria,
was not complied with.
4.1 It is also Mr. Kapur's contention that the submissions with
regard to the alleged failure to follow the core process were not
W.P.(C) 519/2015 page 3 of 5
included in the grounds of appeal.
5. As against this, Mr. Parasaran, in rebuttal, says that written
submissions were filed, to which a reply was filed on behalf of
respondent no.2 and, therefore, the parties were aware of the issues,
which required adjudication in the matter.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there are, in
my view, issues which require examination. However, what I am
required to consider, at this stage, given the fact that CLAB has
passed the impugned order on a remand by this court, amongst others,
is, whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner.
Though, undoubtedly the writ petitioner is a well-known supporting
club of the country, it would have to, like other clubs and bodies,
abide by the rules and regulations framed to ensure its proper
functioning. According to CLAB, the writ petitioner has violated,
not one, but several regulations. Having regard to these findings, at
least, at this stage, no relief can be granted.
7. Accordingly, the interim relief as prayed for, is declined. CM
No.879/2015 is dismissed.
W.P.(C) 519/2015
8. Issue notice to the respondents via ordinary post and approved
courier.
9. Mr. Kirpal accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2.
10. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to respondent no.1.
11. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder
thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
W.P.(C) 519/2015 page 4 of 5
12. List on 10.04.2015.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 16, 2015
yg
W.P.(C) 519/2015 page 5 of 5
