Kerala High Court

Sudheer S. S vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2025

WA No.687 of 2025                  1

                                               2025:KER:49525

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                               &

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

   TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947

                      WA NO. 687 OF 2025

           ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2025 IN
         WP(C) NO.7815 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

           SUDHEER S.S
           AGED 59 YEARS
           S/O.SURENDRAN S,
           ATHAM, TC 27/687, VANCHIYOOR P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035


           BY ADVS.
           SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
           SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
           SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
           SHRI.PAUL BABY
           SHRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
           SMT.SWATHY A.P.



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
           DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
           SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

     2     KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL
           OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, NEAR
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 695001
 WA No.687 of 2025                            2

                                                                2025:KER:49525


     3          A.M.K NIZAR
                VICE PRESIDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
                SPORTS COUNCIL, RESIDING AT T.C 20/1232,
                KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002


                BY ADVS.
                SMT.LATHA ANAND, R2
                SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR, R3
                SMT.AISWARYA AJAYAGHOSH
                SMT.RIYA KOCHUMMAN
                SMT.AARATHY NAIR S.R.
                SMT.ARATHY A.R.
                SRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, R1



         THIS    WRIT    APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
08.07.2025,        THE    COURT   ON   THE       SAME    DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA No.687 of 2025                      3

                                                       2025:KER:49525




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025

Syam Kumar V.M. J.

This Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

02.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7815 of

2025. Appellant was the petitioner in the said Writ Petition.

Respondents were the respondents therein.

2. Appellant is the President of the Sports Council of

Thiruvananthapuram District. He had filed the Writ Petition

aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the 2 nd and 1st

respondents, respectively, removing the appellant/petitioner

from the post of the President of Thiruvananthapuram District

Sports Council. He contends that no show cause notice had

been issued and no explanation had been called for before the

issuance of the said orders which he terms as illegal and ultra

vires the powers of the 1st respondent to issue. He thus filed

the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

"i) call for the records leading to Exts.P1 and P2 orders and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

2025:KER:49525

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing through an authorized representative, within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

iii) dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language;

and

iv) grant such other and further reliefs as deemed by the Hon'ble Court fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case."

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties,

had disposed of the Writ Petition vide the impugned judgment

with the following directions:

"In the above circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:

1. The petitioner's prayer to quash Exts.P1 and P2 orders is rejected.

2. The 1st respondent shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder within four weeks from the date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment.

3. The petitioner shall reply to the show cause notice

2025:KER:49525

within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt the show cause notice.

4. On the receipt of the reply, the duly constituted committee shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, and then submit a report to the 1 st respondent.

5. On receipt of the above report, the 1st respondent shall form an opinion and finalise the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in accordance with law."

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single

Judge, the appellant has filed this Appeal.

5. Heard Sri.Thomas Abraham, Advocate for the

appellant, Sri.S.Kannan, Senior Government Pleader for the 1 st

respondent, Smt.Latha Anand, Advocate for the 2 nd respondent

and Sri.Santhan V. Nair, Advocate for the 3rd respondent.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant

contended that the learned Single Judge erred in overlooking

the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 orders are legally unsustainable.

The learned Counsel contends that the post of President of the

Sport Council, Thiruvananthapuram District, is an elected post

and not a post that one holds during the pleasure of the 1 st or

2nd respondents, so as to enable them to order the removal of

2025:KER:49525

an incumbent occupying the said post by issuing orders like

Exts.P1 and P2. The learned Counsel invites our attention to

Section 9 (6) in Chapter III of the Kerala Sports Act, 2000,

relating to District Sports Councils. It inter alia stipulates that

every member of the District Sports Council other than ex-

officio member shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and

the Rules made thereunder, hold office until the next

reconstitution of the District Sports Council. Thus an

incumbent has a fixed tenure and cannot be ousted at the

whims of the 1st respondent. The learned Counsel also invites

our attention to Rule 4 of the Kerala State Sports Council

Rules 2008, relating to removal of members from office which

stipulates as follows:

Rule 4 : Removal of members from office. - Any person other than an ex-officio member of the council,

(a) insolvent persons,

(b) who has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment,

(c ) mentally unstable,

(d) absent himself from three consecutive meetings of the council without the permission of the council.

(e) He abuses his position in the Council in such a manner as to cause the Government to believe that his continued presence in the Council would be prejudicial to the public interest.

2025:KER:49525

For reasons stated above, he may be removed from office by issuing an order by the Government.

No one can be removed without giving him an opportunity to offer his explanation.

7. Rule 29 of the Kerala Sports Rules, 2008, which

relates to the removal of members of the District Sports

Council and the resignation of the President, Vice-President

and members provides that Rules 4 and 5 shall mutatis

mutandis apply in the case of removal of District Council

members and the resignation of President, Vice-President and

members of the District Sports Council. It is also contended

that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the

purported reason stated for the removal of the appellant from

his post would not attract the provision under Sub Rule (e) of

Rule 4 of the Kerala Sports Rules. In the instant case, there

was nothing to show that the purported reason that handball

players were protesting against adverse remarks made by

higher-ups regarding their 2nd place finish at the National

Championship would attract Sub Rule (e) of Rule 4 to justify

the removal of the appellant. It was also contended that the

President of the 2nd respondent, who is stated to have

prepared a report regarding the alleged incident and who had

made the baseless allegations against the appellant, is the

2025:KER:49525

same person who has been designated to lead the Committee

to enquire into the allegations mentioned in the

aforementioned report. Thus, according to the learned

Counsel, the lack of fairness was writ large in the actions of

the 1st and 2nd respondents. Over and above the same, the

learned Counsel contends that there had been a total violation

of principles of natural justice while issuing Exts. P1 and P2

orders in so far as the copy of the report dated 20.02.2025

prepared by the Kerala State Sports Council regarding the

allegations against the appellant had not been served on him.

Neither had he been afforded an opportunity of hearing before

issuing Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The learned Counsel thus

contended that the Single Judge had thus failed to notice the

total illegality and arbitrariness in the removal of the appellant

from the post of President vide Exts. P1 and P2 orders.

8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 made submissions in line with the

counter affidavits filed by them. It was contended that the

appellant had only been suspended from his official

responsibilities, and had not been 'removed' from the post of

President as alleged. Suspension is only a temporary

disengagement and does not amount to 'removal'. The

2025:KER:49525

suspension had been made to facilitate the enquiry that was

on the anvil against the appellant as per Ext. P2 Government

Order. It does not amount to punishment and hence no prior

notice is required to be given. Since it was essential to ensure

fairness during the conduct of the enquiry, the appellant had

to be kept under suspension; consequently, the 2nd respondent

was constrained to put the Vice President of the

Thiruvananthapuram Sports Council in the place of the

appellant after suspending him. It is contended that the

provisions of the Act and the Rules permit the Vice President

to act on behalf of the President. It is further submitted that

the term of the Executive Committee of the

Thiruvananthapuram District Sports Council had already

expired and presently, the Committee is continuing as a

caretaker Committee till the next election. Therefore, the

appellant is only a caretaker President, and he had no claim to

any legal right to continue. As regards the non-compliance

with the requirements of natural justice, it is submitted that

the learned Single Judge had in the directions issued in the

impugned judgment ordered that the 1st respondent shall

issue a show cause notice to the appellant as per the

provisions of the Act and the Rules within 4 weeks from the

2025:KER:49525

date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, and that

the appellant has to be heard by the newly constituted

Committee. The reply to the show cause to be submitted by

the appellant has also been directed to be considered by such

Committee. A decision has been directed to be taken to

finalise the proceedings initiated against the appellant after

such hearing. This, according to learned Counsel,

satisfactorily meets the mandates of natural justice. Based on

Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 it is contended

that the power to appoint includes the power to suspend or

dismiss. Hence, Exts. P1 and P2 have been validly issued,

removing the appellant from the post of President. The

learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 thus prayed that

the Writ Appeal may be dismissed as devoid of merit.

9. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered

the respective contentions put forth. We note that though the

relevant provision of the Act and the Rules reproduced above

mandates that a person shall not be removed without allowing

him to offer his explanation, no prior notice nor an opportunity

of being heard had been afforded to the appellant before his

removal vide Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Further, the appellant,

being an appointee under Section 9(4) of the Kerala Sports

2025:KER:49525

Act, 2000, and an elected member, he could not have been

removed/suspended temporarily or permanently that too

without following the procedure envisaged in law. We find

merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the

appellant that the learned Single Judge had erred in

concluding that the appellant has only been 'suspended'

pending enquiry. Both Exts. P1 and P2 orders state that the

appellant has to be removed/ kept away from his post, and an

enquiry is to be conducted. In light of the provisions

reproduced above, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have no power

in law to remove the appellant as has been done vide Exts.P1

and P2 orders without hearing the appellant. No source for

such a power to suspend the President pending inquiry has

been pointed out to us under the Act or the Rules.

10. Now we come to the contention put forth by the

learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the directions

issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment

whereby the appellant has been directed to be issued with a

show cause notice and thereafter to be afforded a hearing

before the Committee constituted, is a satisfactory compliance

of natural justice principles and nothing more is required. We

are unable to accept the same. We find merit in the contention

2025:KER:49525

of the Counsel for the appellant that such a post-decisional

compliance with natural justice after unilaterally removing the

appellant from a post that he had been legally occupying does

not constitute a valid compliance with the mandates of natural

justice. Since the appellant was removed from the post by

following an illegal procedure, any amount of hearing afforded

to him thereafter would not meet the ends of justice.

Moreover, as alleged by the appellant, an Enquiry Committee

consisting of the very same person who had prepared a critical

report on the appellant cannot be termed as independent or

neutral. The contention put forth based on Section 16 of the

General Clauses Act that power to appoint includes the power

to suspend or dismiss, does not assist the case of the

respondents in so far as the relevant provisions of the Sports

Act, 2000 and the Rules thereunder, reproduced hereinabove,

clearly govern the field, leaving no scope for importing the

principles of the General Clauses Act. That the appellant was

occupying an elected post of specified tenure and the 2 nd

respondent had no power to remove him negatives the

contention based on Section 16 of the General Clauses Act.

11. In view of the above discussion, the judgment dated

02.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7815 of

2025:KER:49525

2025 is found to be unsustainable in law and is set aside.

Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the 2 nd and 1st respondents,

respectively, are quashed. This would not, however, preclude

the competent authorities from proceeding with inquiry, if

any, against the appellant before a neutral and independent

Committee as envisaged in law, strictly following the

principles of natural justice.

The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE

SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE smm

2025:KER:49525

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.A2/44/2025/SPORTS & YOUTH DEPARTMENT DATED 19/4/25 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8/5/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT HEREIN TO ANNEXURE A3 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.4.2025 NO. A2/44/2025-SYA ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS TRANSLATION