Manipur High Court
Unknown vs Fencing Association Of India ... on 6 April, 2021
MAYAN Digitally signed [1]
by
GLAMBA MAYANGLAMB
AM CHANU IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M NANDINI
AT IMPHAL
CHANU Date:
2021.04.06 WP (C) No. 118 of 2020
NANDINI 15:53:00 +05'30'
The Manipur Fencing Association (MFA), having Regd. No.
4932 of 1983, Khuman Lampak, Indoor Stadium, Imphal
represented by its President, Shri Thangjam Joykumar Singh,
aged about 71 years, S/o (L) Th. Gopal Singh of Uripok Yambem
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin-
795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Fencing Association of India (FAI), represented by its
Secretary, having its office at H. No. 52, Second Floor, 3
Block, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
2. The President, Fencing Association of India (FAI), represented
by its Secretary General, having its office at 107, Shanti Kunj
Main, Vasant Kunj, New Delh-110070.
3. Mr. Hijam Ranbir Singh, Vice-President, Fencing Association
of India, Chingamakha Ningthoujam Leikai, Liwa Road, P.O. &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.
... Respondents
With
WP (C) No. 537 of 2020
The Manipur Fencing Association (MFA), having Regd.
No. 4932 of 1983, Khuman Lampak, Indoor Stadium, Imphal
represented by its President, Shri Thangjam Joykumar Singh,
aged about 71 years, S/o (L) Th. Gopal Singh of Uripok Yambem
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin - 795001.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The state of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (Coop.), Government of Manipur.
2. The Registrar of Societies, Manipur.
... Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[2]
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
For the petitioners ∷ Shri M. Devananda, Advocate.
For the respondents ∷ Shri Ruchir Mishra, Advocate;
Shri Sharan Dhulia, Advocate,
Shri M. Hemchandra, Sr Advocate &
Shri Lenin Hijam, Addl. A.G.
Date of Hearing ∷ 18-03-2021
Date of Judgment & Order ∷ 06-04-2021 [ 27-3-2021 to 4-4-2021
being holidays for Holi)
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners; Shri Ruchir Mishra and Shri Sharan Dhulia, learned
Advocates appearing for the Fencing Association of India; Shri M.
Hemchandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 and
Shri Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State
respondents.
[2] Since the above writ petitions have arisen out of similar set of
facts, the same are being disposed of by this Court vide its common
judgment and order.
WP(C ) NO. 118 of 2020
[3.1] The validity and correctness of the order dated 07-02-2020
issued by the Fencing Association of India (hereinafter referred to as "the
FAI") is under challenge in this writ petition in view of the judgment &
orders dated 01-03-2016 and dated 09-05-2016 passed by this Court and
the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice and in addition
thereto, a prayer has been made by the petitioner association to direct
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[3]
the respondents and in particular, the FAI from interfering with the
functioning of the petitioner association in violation of the provisions of the
Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 and the rules made thereunder.
[3.2] The petitioner, Manipur Fencing Association (hereinafter
referred to as "the petitioner association") is an association duly
registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1860". It was established with the
aims and objectives of promoting and developing the game of fencing in
the State of Manipur and the country in general and is affiliated to the
Manipur Olympic Association (MOA) vide a certificate dated 05-03-1989
issued by it. Like other association or body of sports registered with the
Registrar of Societies, Manipur, the petitioner association has a
constitution which defines the powers, functions and duties of its office
bearers and lays down the rules concerning its administration and its
relations with the affiliating units/ members
[3.3] The petitioner association is affiliated to the FAI and under its
aegis, the fencers from the State were able to participate in many national
and international sporting events/ championships. Not only the players
but also the officials of the petitioner association were deputed/ selected
as referees/ officials in various championships/ national sporting events.
The FAI is a registered association as well as a non-governmental
national association with non-profit making purposes of national interest
and in other words, it is a legal entity having its own Memorandum of
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[4]
Association, Constitution etc., thereby laying down the rules governing its
own functioning and matters concerning it in relation to the members and
affiliating units etc.
[3.4] Facts
and circumstances as stated in the writ petition, in short,
are that since the last election of the petitioner association was held on
14-12-2014, the next election ought to have been held before the 13-12-
2018 but the same could not be held due to the law and order problems
in the State of Manipur regarding the implementation of the Inner Line
Permit System (ILP) in the State. There were frequent bandhs,
blockades, curfews, riots etc. in the State of Manipur and in particular, the
Imphal Valley, because of which the election of the petitioner association
could not be held and in the meantime, the then Secretary, Shri W. Ranjit
Singh had expired, for which a condolence message dated 15-12-2019
was circulated to all concerned. The post of the Secretary of the petitioner
association which remained vacant for some time, was later filled up on
in-charge basis, so that the functioning of the petitioner association would
not be disrupted.
[3.5] After the law and order situation in the State having improved
considerably, the petitioner association initiated the process of holding an
annual general body meeting with the election of new office bearers, for
which a communication dated 23-01-2020 was sent to the Secretary
General, the FAI requesting him to send an observer for the annual
general body meeting to be held 09-02-2020. On the same day i.e.23-01-
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[5]
2020, a letter dated 23-01-2020 was sent to the Director, Youth Affairs &
Sports, Government of Manipur for sending an observer on the day of
holding the election. On the next day, a letter dated 24-01-2020 was sent
to the Registrar of Societies for appointment of a Returning Officer for the
election to be held on 09-02- 2020. The Returning Officer was duly
appointed and accordingly, the I/C Secretary of the petitioner association
Issued a press release dated 25-01-2020 informing about the annual
general body meeting and the election of the petitioner association to be
held on the 09-02-2020. On 01-02-2020, a communication was sent to
the Registrar of Societies, Manipur requesting him to send an observer
for the annual general body meeting to be held on 09-02-2020.
[3.6] Thereafter, the Returning Officer issued a notice dated 03-02-
2020 notifying the election to be held on 09-02-2020 and after the
election notification being issued by him, the i/c Secretary issued a final
voter list for the election to be held on the 09-02-2020 and the names of
the nominated members for the election to the various posts were also
issued accordingly.
[3.7] In the meantime, the office of the Registrar of Societies,
Manipur wrote a letter dated 07-02-2020 informing that Shri Deepak
Khuraijam, Inspector C.S. was deputed as the Meeting Observer for the
annual general body meeting to be held on 09-02-2020.
[3.8] To the shock and surprise of the petitioner association, the FAI
issued an office order dated 07-02-2020 dissolving the petitioner
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[6]
association by invoking Article 19(iv) of its Memorandum of Association
and appointed the respondent No.3 to look after all the activities and to
administer the affairs & functioning of the petitioner association in respect
of the game of fencing in Manipur. The order further states that a decision
has been made to suspend and dissolve the petitioner association and
after the submission of a report by the Enquiry Committee, it will
constitute an Ad-hoc Committee to look after the fencing activities in
Manipur till a new election is conducted as per the National Sports
Development Code, 2011, MYAS and in accordance with the constitution
of the FAI.
[3.9] Being aggrieved by the order dated 07-02-2020, the instant writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner association questioning it on
various grounds. It has been submitted by it that the FAI has failed to take
cognisance of the election process being undertaken by the petitioner
association. The FAI while issuing the order dated 07-02-2020
suspending/ dissolving the petitioner association and entrusting to the
respondent No.3 the task of looking after all the activities and to
administrate the affairs & functioning of the fencing activities in the State,
has illegally and arbitrarily interfered with the functioning of the petitioner
association. It has further been submitted that on bare perusal of its
Memorandum of Association/ constitution, the FAI is nowhere conferred
the power to interfere with the functioning and working of any affiliating
member, leave alone the petitioner association. The Memorandum of
Association of the FAI was framed/ made so as to lay down the rules and
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[7]
regulations for its own functioning and to maintain and regulate the
standard of fencing as a sport in the country. Although the petitioner
association by duly following the provisions of the constitution conducted
its election, the FAI had acted illegally and arbitrarily and failed to take
cognisance of the election process initiated by the petitioner association.
The contention of the FAI that after the submission of a report by the
Inquiry Committee, it will constitute an Ad-hoc Committee to look after the
fencing activities in Manipur till a new election is held, goes to show the
intent and motive of the FAI to accommodate persons of its choice
thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Article 19(iv) which
provides for expulsion of a member from the FAI, has been misquoted in
the impugned order to justify its interference with the affairs and
functioning of the petitioner Association in order to accommodate the
respondent No.3 illegally and arbitrarily. In a similar case pertaining to the
Sepak Takraw Federation of India (hereinafter referred to as "the STFI"),
the validity and correctness of the constitution of an Ad-hoc Committee
after the petitioner therein being disaffiliated by it, was challenged
wherein this Court vide its Judgment & Order dated 01-03-2016 held that
STFI had no power and jurisdiction to interfere with the affairs/ functioning
of any of its affiliating units; that there was no provisions in its Constitution
to constitute Ad-Hoc Committee and that the STFI had no authority to
constitute Ad-Hoc Committee. The STFI being aggrieved by it, preferred
writ appeals being WA No.15 of 2016 and WA No.16 of 2016 before the
Division Bench of this Court which dismissed them vide its Judgment &
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[8]
Order dated 09-05-2016 upholding the judgment and order of the learned
Single judge. Similar is the case with the Cycling Association of India
which constituted an Ad-Hoc Committee and it came to be challenged
before this Court, by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No,431 of 2019,
which stayed the constitution of Ad-hoc Committee vide order dated 29-
05-2019. Since this Court having held that such an association like the
FAI, cannot interfere with the functioning of its affiliated units/
associations, the case of the petitioner association is covered by the said
judgment & orders and consequently, the impugned order dated 07-02-
2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order dated
07-02-2020 is not sustainable in law, as it was issued by the FAI without
any authority of law and without proper application of its mind and is
contrary to the judgment & orders passed by this Court.
[4.1] In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2, it has
been stated that since the issues relating to the questions of facts have
arisen, the interference by this Court is not called for and this Court being
not an appropriate forum, it may not exercise its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner association is well aware of
the Memorandum of Association/ bye-laws of the FAI but it has presented
misleading picture concealing the constitution of the FAI which contains
Article 19(iv) as amended till 24-12-2019. Since the judgment and order
dated 01-03-2016 passed by this Court in STFA and similar orders have
been delivered in different set of facts, the same are not applicable to the
facts of the present case. The FAI is the only National Federation for the
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[9]
sports of fencing in India, recognized by and affiliated to the international
federation for the sports of fencing and also recognized by International
Olympic Committee (1OC) and Indian Olympic Association (IOA). The
State associations being the members of the FAI, they are required to
observe, conform and follow the provisions contained in the
Memorandum of Association/ bye-laws of the FAI which have been
framed in tune with the Olympic Charter, bye-laws of Indian Olympic
Association etc and have been amended from time to time. At the
relevant time, the bye-laws as amended till 24-12-2019 were in force, on
the basis of which the impugned order was issued by the FAI. Article 16
confers power upon the FAI to disaffiliate or take any action against any
unit & member for indiscipline, misbehaviour or any undesirable activity,
violation of constitution, bye-laws etc. and for non-functioning properly
and appoint Ad-hoc Committee to discharge the functions of the
associations of States/ UTs till the formation of new representative
association in place of the Ad-hoc Committee. In addition thereto, the
Executive Committee is empowered to appoint special/ ad-hoc
committee(s) for specific functions and duties, as and when it is
necessary for its smooth functioning and/or its affiliated units in their
States/UTs. Article 19(iv) provides that all members are mandatorily
required to obtain renewal of their membership from the FAI/ affiliation to
it on yearly basis. The members are required to conduct fresh elections at
least once in four years and their failure in doing so would bring into effect
automatic disaffiliation. A six months' extension is permissible, subject to
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[10]
prior approval. Article 17 (a)(v) provides that the President shall have the
authority to suspend/ dissolve/ disaffiliate summarily any member/
associate member and/ or official/ office bearer, except the Secretary
General of the association in serious cases of misconduct or
disobedience in the association. The election was to be held before 13-
12-2018 but the petitioner association failed to discharge its obligation to
conduct the election. The petitioner association had not applied and
sought for approval of the FAl to conduct the election within a grace
period of 6 months. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in
view of an efficacious remedy available under Article 20 of the FAI's
Memorandum of Association which provides for a mechanism of
settlement of disputes/ conflicts by way of arbitration which the petitioner
association has not resorted to. The office bearers of the petitioner
association had no lawful authority to continue in their offices/ posts/
positions as their tenure had ended on 13-12-2018 without process of
election having been initiated by the petitioner association before 13-12-
2018. The mechanism to administer the affairs of petitioner association
as has been put in place by the office order dated 07-02-2020, is
interregnum mechanism to remain in place till the inquiry report is
submitted by the Inquiry Committee constituted vide office order dated
07-02-2020. After the report of the Inquiry Committee being received, the
consequent decision based thereon will have to be taken to constitute an
Ad-hoc Committee and thereafter, a fresh election is to be conducted in
accordance with the relevant provisions. After the impugned order being
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[11]
issued by the FAI, the petitioner association has no authority to transact
any business and any action taken by it towards holding election, is not
valid and illegal. Therefore, the alleged AGM referred to by the petitioner
association in the writ petition was illegal AGM. The petitioner association
had no authority to call and convene AGM and also no authority to hold
the election. It has been denied that the impugned order dated
07.02.2020 has been issued in haste and that too, in violation of the
principles of natural justice and to accommodate the persons of its choice
as alleged.
[4.2] The stand of the respondent No.3 as indicated in his affidavit, is
similar to that of the respondent No.1 & 2 and therefore, the same is not
repeated here for the sake of brevity. However, it has been stated by him
that the issue relating to the maintainability of the writ petition has been
raised on the inter-alia grounds that the writ petition suffers from lack of
locus standi as well as vague, misrepresentation and non-enforceable
right being accrued to the petitioner association and that to entertain the
writ petition by this Court would amount to unnecessary intervention in
the exercise of statutory rights of the authorities provided under articles of
the Memorandum of Association of the FAI effective from 24-12-2019.
The ratio of the judgment and order rendered by this Court in STFI case
will have no application, as the facts thereof are entirely different from
that of the present writ petition. There is no illegalities, irregularities,
arbitrariness and impropriety in issuing the impugned order on the part of
the FAI, as it is the outcome of the procedure being followed as per the
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[12]
constitution of the FAI, despite several letters/ reminders dated 14-09-
2017; 31-10-2017; 10-11-2017; 20-12-2017; 04-03-2018 & 0l-03-2019
being sent to the petitioner association. The impugned order has been
issued by the Secretary General, FAI thereby dissolving the petitioner
association by invoking Article 19(iv) of the Memorandum of Association
and appointing the answering respondent to look after all the activities
and to administrate the affairs & functioning of the sports/ fencing
activities in Manipur. There are no illegalities, arbitrariness & malafide in
issuing the said order dated 07-02-2020 which was issued in compliance
with the Article No 19 (iv) of the Memorandum of Association of the FAI.
The FAI can interfere with the affairs and functioning of the petitioner
association and has also the power to suspend/ dissolve it. The FAI has
also the power, authority and jurisdiction to constitute Ad-hoc Committee
for the reason(s) as stated hereinabove
[5] In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated by the petitioner
association that there is no any issue relating to disputed questions of
facts. No material facts have been concealed by it while filing the writ
petition. The only issue which calls for consideration by this Court is as to
whether the FAI has the authority to issue the impugned order in view of
the judgment and order dated 01-03-2016 passed by this Court. It has
further been stated that the petitioner association was not aware of the
amendment of the Memorandum of Association nor was it communicated
to it and therefore, a copy of the memorandum of Association which was
bonafide believed by it to be in force, was filed along with the writ petition.
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[13]
Since the election was held in accordance with law, the FAI had no power
to interfere with it. As regards the appointment of Ad-hoc Committee and
disaffiliation of the petitioner association, the power of doing so, will have
to be exercised only on the recommendation of the Executive Committee.
Since there was no such recommendation of the Executive Committee,
the action taken by the FAI without following the procedure laid down in
the constitution, was arbitrary and illegal.
WP (C) NO. 537 of 2020:
[6.1] During the pendency of the writ petition being WP(C) No.118 of
2020, the above writ petition was filed by the petitioner association
praying for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ to direct the
respondents to approve its election held on 11-03-2020 and also to
consider the representation dated 13-03-2020 submitted by it.
[6.2] Facts and circumstances of the above case are similar to that of
the writ petition being WP(C) No.118 of 2020 and therefore, the same are
not repeated here for the sake of brevity. According to the petitioner
association, since the last election was held on 14-12-2014, the next
election was to be held before 13-12-2019 but could not be held on
account of the law and order problem in the State and in the meantime,
Shri W. Ranjit Singh, the Secretary of the petitioner association had
expired. After the law and order situation having improved, the petitioner
association initiated the process of election for which a letter dated
23-01-2020 was sent to the FAI requesting it to send an observer for the
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[14]
annual general body meeting and the election to be held on 09-02-2020.
On the same day, a similar letter was sent to the Director, Youth Affairs &
Sports, Government of Manipur for the same purpose. On the next day, a
letter was sent for appointment of Returning officer who was duly
appointed and accordingly, a press release was issued on 25-01-2020,
followed by a letter dated 01-02-2020 addressed to the Registrar of
Societies, Manipur for sending an observer. The Returning Office issued
a list of voter after the date of election being declared. Shri Deepak
Khuraijam. Inspector was deputed as the observer.
[6.3] Although the annual general body meeting was held on 09-02-
2020 as scheduled but the election of the officer bearers was deferred on
the advice of the FAI. Thereafter, a letter dated 12-02-2020 was sent to
the FAI submitting all the necessary documents. On the grant of sanction
by the FAI, a letter dated 05-03-2020 was sent to the Registrar of
Societies, Manipur requesting it to hold the election and to depute an
observer for the election to be held on 11-03-2020. The election was duly
held on 11-03-2020 and the petitioner association vide its letter dated
13-03-2020 sent the proceedings thereof to the Registrar of Societies,
Manipur along with relevant documents for approval. However, the
Registrar of Societies, Manipur failed to issue any order approving it.
Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the
instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner association.
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[15]
[6.4] The stand of the respondents as indicated in the affidavit filed
on their behalf, is that the deputation of Shri Deepak Khuraijam, Inspector
for the election to be held on 09-02-2020 was not denied. However, it has
been stated that he submitted a report to the effect that the election could
not be held on 09-02-2020 for want of quorum. The receipt of letter dated
13-03-2020 was also not denied but all that has been stated in the
affidavit, is that no acknowledgment was issued on account of the WP(C)
No.118 of 2020 being pending before this Court for disposal.
[7] From the pleadings as aforesaid, the short question which calls
for consideration by this Court is as to whether, having regard to the
judgment and order dated 01-03-2016 passed by this Court in WP(C)
No.184 of 2015 & ors, All Manipur Sepak Takraw Association Vs.
Sepak Takraw Federation of India & ors (hereinafter referred to as
"the AMSTA"), the respondent No.1 can be said to have issued the
order dated 07-02-2020 in accordance with law or not. In other words,
whether the order dated 07-02-2020 issued by the respondent No.1 is
sustainable in law.
[8.1] Since the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having
heavily relied upon this Court's judgment and order 01-03-2016, this
Court deems it appropriate to examine the facts and circumstances of the
said case and the observations made therein.
[8.2] The AMSTA is affiliated to the STFI and the AMSTA was
allowed by it to hold championships in the State of Manipur. In a General
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[16]
Body Meeting of the AMSTA held on 22-06-2014, its officer bearers and
executive members were elected for the term 2014-2018 by strictly
following the bye-laws as well as the provisions of the Manipur Societies
Registration Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1989") and the
STFI was duly informed about it. Accordingly, the Secretary General,
STFI addressed a letter dated 23-06-2014 to the President/ Secretary of
the AMSTA requesting it to inform the players and the coaches and to
make sure that they attended the National Coaching Camp to be held
on 29-06-2014 at Victory Indoor Stadium, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. To
its shock and dismay, the STFI declared the said election of the office
bearers of the AMSTA as null and void and decided that an Ad-hoc
Committee be constituted vide its letter dated 30-06-2014. However,
according to the AMSTA, the Registrar of Societies, Manipur vide its
letter dated 04-08-2014 had accorded approval to the said election of its
office bearers. In consequence of the said letter dated 30-06-2014, the
STFI issued a notice dated 05-10-2014 for holding a meeting of the
Executive Body on 01-11-2014 to discuss the agenda as regards the
conversion of the temporary suspension of the AMSTA into permanent
disaffiliation along with other agenda. No formal decision a p p e a r s t o
h a v e b e e n taken or for that matter, no order was issued by the STFI
temporarily suspending the AMSTA from being its member. The
AMSTA, assuming probably from the notice dated 05-10-2014 that it
has been suspended temporarily, approached this Court praying for
appropriate writ directing the STFI to revoke the temporary suspension. A
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[17]
writ petition being WP (C) No. 822 of 2014 was filed by the AMSTA
praying for issuing an appropriate writ directing the STFI to revoke the
temporary suspension of the AMSTA.
[8.3] During the pendency of the said writ petition being WP (C)
of 822 of 2014, a resolution was passed by the STFI in its Annual
General Body Meeting held on 01-11-2014 for permanent disaffiliation
of the AMSTA and for forming an Ad-hoc Committee. Being aggrieved
by the said resolution dated 01-11-2014, the AMSTA challenged it by
way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.184 of 2015 on the inter-alia
grounds that the STFI had no legal authority to intervene in the election
of the office bearers of the AMSTA; that no notice was given to it for
holding the said Annual General Meeting although 21 days notice was
required to be given as per the rules and regulations of the STFI and
that the rules did not provide for disaffiliation of the AMSTA from the
STFI.
[8.4] According to the AMSTA, surprisingly and much to its
consternation, the Secretary General, the STFI issued an order dated 15-
12-2014 constituting an Ad-hoc Committee comprising the Director of
Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of Manipur and two
representatives from the STFI who were international players from the
State of Manipur. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15-12-
2014, a writ petition being WP(C) No.318 of 2015 was filed by the
AMSTA on the inter-alia grounds that the STFI had no authority to
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[18]
constitute the said Committee and as such, it was not sustainable and
illegal and that even after the representatives from the Sports
Department having been withdrawn, the Ad-hoc Committee was
constituted to suit the whims and fancies of the STFI by adopting a
method of pick and choose with vested interest.
[8.5] The said writ petitions were being contested by the STFI
by filing separate two affidavits-in-opposition raising preliminary
objections that the AMSTA did not come before this Court with clean
hands and had concealed material facts; that the AMSTA had not
whispered a word about the reasons of its suspension; that the AMSTA
having no interest in the development of Sepak Takraw in the State of
Manipur, had manipulated the election of its office bearers and that the
writ petitions were not maintainable on the ground that the writ petitions
ought to have been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, since all
the respondents have their office bearers and place of work in Delhi. As
regards the merits of the case, it was stated that the STFI being a sole
body to develop, manage, control and regulate the sports of Sepak
Takraw in India, consists of various associations and All India Control
Boards as its members; that the STFI had the power to make new
member and to take action against the existing members in the form of
suspension or penalty etc. Since the AMSTA had not followed the
decision taken in the meeting held on 16-10-2013 at Kohima, the STFI
vide its letter dated 30-06-2014 informed the AMSTA that its election
be declared as null and void and that an Ad-hoc Committee be
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[19]
constituted for managing the affairs of the sport of Sepak Takraw in
the State of Manipur in the interest of the sports till fresh and fair
election is held; that the STFI was compelled to conduct such a step
on account of non-transparent election being held in violation of
the rules; that the STFI has the right to regulate the functioning of its
members and make rules, regulations and by-laws to ensure
democracy, transparency, accountability and good governance. In the
writ petition being WP(C) No.318 of 2015, an affidavit-on-opposition
has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 wherein it is
stated that Ad-hoc Committee was constituted in the interest of the
players after the disaffiliation of the AMSTA and that the said Ad-hoc
Committee was looking after the affairs of the sports of Sepak Takraw in
the State.
[8.6] In view of the rival contentions made therein, the following
issues arose for consideration by this court:
a) Whether the respondent federation has the power to declare
the election of the petitioner association as null and void, when
the said election has been held in accordance with the
provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies Act, 1989?
b) Whether the respondent federation is justified in disaffiliation of
the petitioner association on the ground of its election having
been declared as null and void by the respondent federation?
c) Whether the petitioner association has concealed material facts
from this court thereby rendering its present writ petition liable
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[20]
to be dismissed by this court?
d) Whether the respondent federation is empowered by its rules
and regulations to constitute an Ad- hoc Committee?
[8.7] The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment and order passed
by this Court in AMSTA case read as under:
In Re: Issue No. (a) & (b):
[9] It is not in dispute that the petitioner association being
a registered society, is affiliated to the respondent federation
and would be governed by the rules and regulations framed
by it. But on perusal of the said rules and regulations of the
respondent federation, it is evident that the said rules and
regulations are silent as to how the relationship between
its members including the petitioner association and the
respondent federation would be regulated and the procedure
to be followed at the time of taking any action against its
members, is also not prescribed therein. As has been stated
hereinabove, the membership is opened to the associations in
the States, all India governmental organisations etc. and not to
any individuals at all. In other words, to be a member of the
respondent federation, one has to be a registered institution or
all India organisations established by the Government or its
agencies. The petitioner association is a society registered
under the provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies
Act, 1989 and since the petitioner association is governed by
the provisions of the said Act, it has to act within its ambit. In
case of violation of bye-laws or any provisions of the said Act
and on receipt of information about it, the Registrar under
Section 22 may order an enquiry into it and after the enquiry
having been held, it shall submit the report to the State
Government which may give directions for removal of any
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[21]
defects or irregularities and in case of failure in removing the
defects or irregularities by a society, may direct the Registrar
to move the court for dissolution of the Society. Section 23
provides that when an enquiry has been held, the Registrar
may, if satisfied that the Society has contravened any
provisions of the Act or rules made there under or has
conducted business not in accordance with the bye-laws or for
any reason mentioned therein, cancel the registration after
giving notice in writing to the society specifying briefly the
grounds thereof and after giving an opportunity to show cause
as to why the cancellation of registration should not be made.
The election of the office bearers of the petitioner association
is to be held in accordance with the bye-laws approved by the
Registrar under the provisions of the said Act at the time of
registration or any amendment made thereon and the conduct
of election is an internal affair of the petitioner association and
in the event of the said bye-laws being violated, it is open to
any aggrieved person to approach the Registrar for taking
necessary action against the society under the provisions of
Sections 22 and 23 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner association that
the respondent federation has no power to declare the
election as null and void, appears to be correct and
countenanced. But the contention that there is no provision for
disaffiliation is not acceptable to this court for the reason
that the power of affiliation will include the power of
disaffiliation. In other words, the power of disaffiliation is
implicit in the power of affiliation. It is the State Government,
on receipt of a report of enquiry, which has the power to give
directions for removal of defects or irregularities and on failure
to do so by a society, to direct the Registrar to move the court
for dissolution. The Registrar is also conferred the power to
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[22]
cancel the registration on the grounds mentioned in the Act
and in the manner indicated therein. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner association has relied upon the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation
Federation Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy & ors., reported
in (2011) 9 SCC 286 to contend that the right to form an
association is a fundamental rights guaranteed under Article
19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Nobody would deny the
principles laid down therein but is not relevant for the
purpose of deciding the issues involved herein. The
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
federation has fairly submitted that all the details cannot be
provided in the rules and regulations and doing that will be
voluminous and impossible. All that he has submitted is that
the respondent federation being an apex body recognised by
the international body, has the power to make its own rules
and regulations and to issue guidelines, instructions etc. and
that the petitioner association being a member enjoying its
patronage, is bound by it. It is submitted by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent federation that in an
Annual General Meeting of the respondent federation held on
16-10-2013, it was resolved that all members must submit
their minutes of the meetings in which all the details as
regards the election of the office bearers namely election
dates, name of election officer, election schedule, nomination
date, withdrawal date, voting mode etc., are mentioned, within
21 days from the date of election and that in case of any of the
members failing to supply the said information, the respondent
federation reserves the rights to declare the election as null
and void and disaffiliate the member. It is also the
submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[23]
federation that since the petitioner association failed to comply
with the said resolution, its election held on 22-06-2014 was
declared as null and void and accordingly, a decision was
taken by the Executive Council for disaffiliation of the
petitioner association and on the same day in a
meeting held on 01-11-2014, the said decision of the
Executive Council was approved and petitioner association
was permanently disaffiliated. According to him, the said
decision was taken in order to ensure fairness, transparency
and accountability in the management and administration of
the affairs of the respondent federation as well as its
members. These contentions of the learned senior counsel for
the respondent federation are not acceptable to this court
except that the respondent federation has the power to
frame its rules and regulations to be abided by it and its
members and consequent disaffiliation on the ground that
election is null and void, is not sustainable in law. As has been
stated above, the election of the petitioner association is its
internal affair and is to be held in accordance with the bye-
laws and in case of violation of bye-laws, it is the State
Government or the Registrar who are empowered under the
provisions of the Manipur Registration of Societies Act, 1989
to take action against the society. The respondent federation
cannot encroach upon or usurp the power conferred upon
the State Government or the Registrar on the basis of a
resolution taken in its meeting. In the name of fairness,
transparency and accountability, the respondent federation
cannot violate the provisions of the said Act. The respondent
federation is neither a supervisory body over the petitioner
association in its internal affairs nor is its role referred to
anywhere in the Act. If the respondent federation felt that the
election of the petitioner association was not held in
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[24]
accordance with law, the only thing that could have been done
by it was to inform the Registrar to take action against the
petitioner association. A procedure for that purpose is
specifically prescribed in the said Act. The relationship
between the petitioner association and the respondent
federation commenced from the day the petitioner
association was affiliated as a member and the petitioner
association was required to abide by the rules and regulations
or the guidelines/ instructions as regards the promotion and
development of Sepak Takraw in the country, some of which
mention may be made, namely the timely payment of fees,
nomination of representatives, supply of information relating to
names of office bearers or members or utilisation of funds
being provided by the respondent federation, the meetings of
the Executive Council to be attended punctually, the conduct
of championship in the State in accordance with the
instructions/ guidelines of the respondent federation, fair
selection of players for participating in the national and
international championship etc. which are illustrative but not
exhaustive. Violation of any of such guidelines/
instructions could be a ground for disaffiliation as agreed
in the Annual General Meeting held on 16-10-2013 but
not on any other ground pertaining to internal affairs of the
member, including the election being declared as null and
void, which are governed by the laws of their respective
States. The procedure to be followed for disaffiliation is also
not provided in the rules and regulations but in the absence of
it, the principles of natural justice ought to be followed before
a member is disaffiliated by the respondent federation. In the
present case, it appears that no show cause notice as to why
the petitioner association be not disaffiliated, was given to
the petitioner association before its disaffiliation and it appears
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[25]
that it was only on the basis of the correspondence between
the petitioner association and the respondent federation that
the Executive Council took the decision for disaffiliation on the
ground that the petitioner association failed to furnish
information, well in time, about the conduct of its election and
that the election be declared as null and void which was
approved in the Annual General Meeting thereby disaffiliating
the petitioner's association permanently. Considering the facts
of the present case and having heard the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the
declaration of election of the office bearers of the petitioner
association as null and void is without any authority of law and
consequently, the disaffiliation is illegal and hence, is liable to
be quashed.
In Re: Issue No. (c):
[10] As regards this issue, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent federation has submitted that
since the petitioner association has suppressed material facts
from this court, the instant writ petition is liable to be
dismissed. Reliance has been made in the case of Prestige
Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India, reported in (2007)
8 SCC 449 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company
had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the
Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court
of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a
party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts
before the Court without any reservation. If there is
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[26]
suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant
or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the
writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss
it without entering into merits of the matter."
Further reliance has been made in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh & ors. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolon
& ors., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held:
"8. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to
plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to
substantiate the averments made in the petition and in
case the pleadings are not complete the court is under no
obligation to entertain the pleas.
10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the
court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus,
the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the
controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned
to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce
appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal
proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the
pleadings should not be granted". Therefore, a decision of
a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings
of the parties.
11. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is
to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues
clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded
or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or
legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by
the parties, the court should not decide the same as the
opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to
answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such
a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[27]
justice. (Vide Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter
College and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi.)
12. It cannot be said that the rules of procedural
law do not apply in PIL. The caution is always added that
every technicality in the procedural law is not available
as a defence in such proceedings when a matter of
grave public importance is for consideration before the
court. (Vide Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v.
State of U.P.)"
There can be no any doubt about the law being laid down
by the Supreme Court but the application thereof depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant
case, the respondent federation has not specified the material
facts which have been suppressed from this court by the
petitioner association except that the petitioner association
being fully aware of the reasons of its suspension and
thereafter, disaffiliation, the petitioner association has not even
whispered a word about that in its entire writ petition. The
learned senior counsel may be right to the extent that the
petitioner association has not stated about it in the averments
made in the petition. However, a copy of the letter dated 30-
06-22014 has been placed on record wherein the reasons for
disaffiliation are mentioned. It can be otherwise, had the said
document not been produced before this court. Admittedly the
facts of the case are not in dispute and moreover, the issues
with regard to the substantial question of law, have been
raised by the petitioner association. The facts of the present
case are different from that of the two cases referred to
above. In the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra), the
contention of the appellant therein was that since it had
submitted a representation on 20-10-2004 wherein it had
proposed to pay dues of the respondent bank after selling
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[28]
the land and building of the factory, the action of the
respondent bank initiated under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was illegal,
unlawful and against the provisions of the Act. The respondent
bank denied the receipt of such a representation from the
appellant. In the other case namely Narmada Bachao
Andolon case (supra), the appellant submitted that the
Hon'ble High Court ought not to have entertained the writ
petition as it did not have material facts/ particulars disclosing
any cause of action to the writ petitioners even in the PIL.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in cases
where grave public importance is involved, every technicality
in the procedural law is not available as a defence. In view of
the above, the instant writ petition cannot be dismissed on
that ground alone and accordingly, this issue has been
decided in favour of the petitioner.
In Re: Issue No. (d):
[11] On perusal of the materials on record and in particular,
the correspondence, the controversy appears to have arisen
out of egoistic problems of the executive members of both the
petitioner association and the respondent federation who
have forgotten that both of them are entrusted the task of
promoting and developing Sepak Takraw in the country.
Both the petitioner association and the respondent federation
are institutions discharging public functions and are expected
to act fairly and reasonably and are not private institutions
whose objectives are to earn profits. In this regard, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent federation has
fairly submitted that the respondent federation has been
declared by the Union of India as public body and is under
the control of the Sports Authority of India. Although the
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[29]
source of income of the respondent federation is not
stipulated in the memorandum of association, it is evident
from the provisions of Article 12 of its rules and regulations
that the respondent federation does definitely receive grants
from the Union of India on account of the responsibility
being shouldered by it. It may be noted that there are peculiar
circumstances in the present case which may have led the
petitioner association and the respondent federation to be
egoistic in their approach. It is an admitted fact that both are
the registered societies and as long as their registrations are
not cancelled in accordance with law, no other societies can
be registered in their place for the same name and purpose.
This is what has happened in the instant case. Although the
election of the office bearers of the petitioner association has
been declared as null and void, its registration is still valid and
continues to be the society so far as the State of Manipur is
concerned and no other societies can be registered in its
place. Since the petitioner association is disaffiliated, the task
of selecting players in the State of Manipur is being entrusted
to an Ad-hoc Committee which cannot be made a permanent
feature applicable for all the years to come. It may be true that
Ad-hoc Committee has been constituted by way of an interim
arrangement but since there being no provisions in the rules
and regulations for such Ad-hoc Committee, it can be safely
held that the respondent federation has no authority to
constitute such an Ad-hoc Committee. The respondent
federation has to act within the bounds of its rules and
regulations. The respondent federation cannot be permitted
to do indirectly which it cannot do directly in law. It must be left
with the State of Manipur but it may also find difficulty for two
reasons - one, the petitioner association will continue to be a
society so far as the State of Manipur is concerned because
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[30]
its election has been approved by the Registrar and
second, the State of Manipur not being a member of the
respondent federation, it cannot send its representatives to the
General Council. Therefore, both the petitioner association
and the respondent federation ought to maintain a healthy
relationship in the interest of sports and to endeavour to
ensure that both do not indulge in politics and are free from
being egoistic in the discharge of their functions. Since both
the petitioner association and the respondent federation being
legal entities, they have no heart and soul and are manned by
persons namely executive members who are expected to
act fairly, sincerely, reasonably and bonafide with no
personal interest. The moment they are not sincere, there is
always a room for the power being misused by them. The
State Government, the petitioner association and the
respondent federation can be said to be the stakeholders
as regards the development of Sepak Takraw in the State
and at this juncture, the role of the State Government is very
important whose duty is to protect the interest of its
citizens and is expected to arrange a joint meeting of the
stakeholders and to thrash out the misunderstanding amongst
them so as to avoid such controversy in future. At the same
time, it is the high time and is absolutely indispensable for
the respondent federation to lay down broad and detailed
guidelines to regulate the relationship between it and its
members and incorporate provisions therein as regards the
procedure to be followed by it at the time of initiating
proceedings for suspension or disaffiliation of its member.
[9] The facts which are not in dispute amongst the parties, are that
the FAI is an association registered under the provisions of the Act, 1860
and established with the aims and objects, as enumerated in the
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[31]
Memorandum of Association, including the one to develop, promote,
organise and control the game of fencing in the country. It holds
championships-national or otherwise and makes selections of Indian
team consisting of players, officials, coaches and managers, participating
in the Asian Games, Asian Championship, Olympics and other
international tournaments. The membership of the FAI is open to fencing
associations of the States/ UTs subject to the condition that only one
association from such area shall be admitted to membership and it will
grant affiliation to it. It declares disaffiliation of its members, if the
elections are not held once in four years or if the member does not inform
about it to the FAI in advance etc. The jurisdiction of the FAI extends to
all the States/ UTS. It takes its affiliation every year from the Sports
Ministry, Government of India. The petitioner association is undoubtedly
affiliated to the FAI and in other words, it is a member of the FAI. It is also
registered under the provisions of the Act, 1860, although its area of
jurisdiction shall be confined to the entire State of Manipur only. Both the
petitioner association and the FAI are legal entities having similar aims
and objects except the difference in the area of jurisdiction. Both are
established under the same provisions of law for the similar purposes.
The one thing which both of them are concerned, is the game of fencing
and in other words, they are concerned and dealing with the interest of
the sportspersons in the country. The members of the FAI select players
in their respective States/ UTs through State level tournaments to
represent their States/ UTs and participate in the national level, while the
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[32]
FAI selects players from amongst them to represent India in the
international tournaments. That is how both of them deal with the same
sportspersons in the country at different levels. Both the FAI and the
petitioner association being the legal entities having no heart and soul,
the interest of the sportspersons/ players in the game of fencing is
paramount. They may go on fighting for one reason or the other but it
must be ensured by all concerned that the interest of the sportspersons/
players is not affected due to their tussle and that it is looked after at any
cost and at all events. Whether they exist or not, is not important and
even in their absence, the interest of the sportspersons/ players is to be
taken care of by the Government in the interest of public in general.
[10.1] Before going into the merit of the case, this Court proposes to
deal with the objections raised by the respondents and in particular, the
FAI as regards the maintainability of the writ petition being WP(C) No.118
of 2020. It is the stand of the respondents therein that the writ petition is
not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner association has no
locus standi to file it because the impugned order has been issued by the
FAI in accordance with the articles of its Memorandum of Association and
that an alternative remedy is available as provided in the Article 20
thereof but since the petitioner association having failed to exhaust it, this
Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In order to substantiate his argument, Shri Ruchir
Mishra, the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 & 2 has referred
to the Memorandum of Association of the FAI as amended & effective
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[33]
from 24-12-2019 and in particular, Article 20 thereof which provides that
all disputes shall be resolved as per the provisions of the Olympic
Charter, for which the President of the FAI shall take steps to put a
dispute resolution mechanism in place. All the member associations shall
include in their constitution, a provision that they would have to resolve
disputes with the provisions stated hereinabove. It is not known as to
whether any dispute resolution mechanism has been put in place or not
but the FAI reserves its right to refer any matter for arbitration under the
Arbitration Act, 1940. Article 26 (4) provides that the FAI may sue or be
sued in the name of the General Secretary and a law suit can only be
filed at the headquarters of the FAI at New Delhi. Combating his
submission, it has been submitted by Shri M. Devananda, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner association that the petitioner
association is not aware of the Memorandum of Association as amended
till 24-12-2019 nor has a copy thereof been furnished to it and therefore, it
will have no application to the case of the petitioner association. In reply
thereto, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 & 2 that even in Article XVII of the un-amended
Memorandum of Association, there are provisions which provide for
resolution of disputes through the arbitration. The submission of the
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 & 2 appears to be correct to
that extent.
[10.2] Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction
on the High Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[34]
for any purpose. It is wide and expansive. The Constitution does not
place any fetter on the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. It is left to
the discretion of the High Court. But the remedy under Article 226 being,
in general, discretionary, the High Court may refuse to grant it where
there exists an alternative remedy. A writ has been refused by the High
Court where the petitioner could get adequate remedy under an
arbitration clause in an agreement or by a suit or by raising a dispute
under the Industrial disputes Act etc. These cases are illustrative but not
exhaustive. In fact, the existence of an adequate alternative remedy is no
bar to grant relief by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, because of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in some
cases that a writ petition is maintainable, despite an alternative remedy
being provided statutorily or otherwise. Such cases are the ones where a
fundamental right has been infringed or where an authority has acted in
contravention of the principles of natural justice or the authority imposes
an ultra vires condition or there is some other defect going to the root of
jurisdiction of the authority etc. In the present case, it may be noted that
the contentions of the petitioner association are that the issue involved
herein is covered by the judgment and order dated 01-03-2016 passed by
this Court; that the FAI has no authority to issue the impugned order and
that the impugned order was issued in violation of the principles of natural
justice. In case the issues involved herein happen to be really covered by
the said judgment and order, there is no point of referring the alleged
dispute to arbitration and moreover, the main issue involved herein
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[35]
relates to the jurisdiction of the FAI. In other words, the issue will warrant
the requirement of going into the root of its jurisdiction. Therefore, after
having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is
of the view that the writ petition cannot be said to be not maintainable and
that the issue needs to be considered and decided by this Court.
[11] So far as the question formulated hereinabove is concerned, it
has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner
association that since such a similar question has already been decided
by this Court, the FAI has no authority to interfere with the affairs and
functioning of the petitioner association and that it has no authority to
constitute Ad-hoc Committee. It has further been submitted by him that
the impugned order was issued in a purported exercise of power
conferred by Article 19(iv) of the Memorandum of Association which
relates to the expulsion of the member from the FAI and that the provision
of the said article has been misquoted while issuing the impugning order.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the counsels appearing for
the respondents including that of the FAI that the impugned order was
issued by the FAI in exercise of power conferred by the Article 19(iv) of
the Memorandum of Association as amended & effective from 24-12-
2019. According to him, the Memorandum of Association, a copy of which
has been filed along with the writ petition, has been amended and a
correct thereof has not been filed by the petitioner association, to which it
has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
petitioner association is not aware of such an amendment, nor has a copy
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[36]
thereof been furnished to it and therefore, it has no application at all. His
contention appears to have some merit warranting consideration by this
Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2, it
has been stated that the Memorandum of Association has been amended
from time to time and the Memorandum of Association which is applicable
to the present case, is the one amended till 24-12-2019 by which the
impugned order was issued. The petitioner association being a member,
is aware of the provisions of the FAI including the amendment made
therein, a copy of which has not been filed deliberately by it. However, it
is nowhere stated in their affidavit as to how the petitioner association has
been made aware of the said amendment without any copy thereof being
served upon it. The averment made by the petitioner association in its
rejoinder affidavit, in this regard, remains un-rebutted by the FAI.
[12.1] Be that as it may, from the perusal of the impugned order dated
07-02-2020, the same appears to have been issued in exercise of power
conferred by Article 19(iv) of the Memorandum Association as amended
till 24-12-2019, the factum of which has been disputed by the petitioner
association, as mentioned above, on the ground that it was not aware of it
nor was a copy thereof furnished to it. In the impugned order issued by
the FAI, it has been stated that the petitioner association has been
dissolved with immediate effect from the date of the order and the FAI will
form an Inquiry Committee to look into the legalities. In the meantime, the
Vice-President of the FAI has been nominated to look after all the
activities and will administer the affairs & functioning of sports activities in
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[37]
Manipur. It has also been stated that it has been decided to suspend and
dissolve the petitioner association and that after the submission of a
report by the Inquiry Committee, an Ad-hoc Committee will be constituted
to look after the fencing activities in Manipur till the new election is
conducted as per the National Sports Development Code and in
accordance with the constitution of the FAI.
[12.2] The validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 07-
02-2020 can be examined and considered by this Court with regard to
four aspects-one, the dissolution of the petitioner association; two, the
new election to be conducted; three, the constitution of an Ad-hoc
Committee and four, the disaffiliation of the petitioner association. As
regards the first aspect namely, the dissolution of the petitioner
association, it may be noted that it is an association registered under the
provisions of the Act, 1860 and if it is to be dissolved, it shall be done in
terms of the provisions of the Act, 1860 and not otherwise. Section 13 of
the Act, 1860 which specifically provides for dissolution of societies,
reads as under:
"13. Provision for dissolution of societies and adjustment
of their affairs.- Any number not less than three-fifths of the
members of any society may determine that it shall be
dissolved, and thereupon it shall be dissolved forthwith, or at
the time then agreed upon, and all necessary steps shall be
taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the
society, its claims and liabilities, according to the rules of the
said society applicable thereto, if any, and if not, then as the
governing body shall find expedient, provided that, in the event
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[38]
of any dispute arising among the said governing body or the
members of the society, the adjustment of its affairs shall be
referred to the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction of the
district in which the chief building of the society is situate; and
the Court shall make such order in the matter as it shall deem
requisite:
Provided that no society shall be dissolved unless three-
fifths of the members shall have expressed a wish for such
dissolution by their votes delivered in person, or by proxy, at a
general meeting convened for the purpose:
Provided that whenever any Government is a member of,
or a contributor to, or otherwise interested in any society
registered under this Act, such society shall not be dissolved
without the consent of the Government of the State of
registration."
As seen from Section 13 above, a society shall be dissolved, if
any number of not less than three-fifths of the members may determine
that it shall be dissolved. The first proviso states that no such society
shall be dissolved, unless the said number of members shall have
expressed a wish for such dissolution by their votes delivered in person
or by proxy, at a general body meeting convened for the purpose. The
second proviso states that whenever any government is a member of or a
contributor to or otherwise interested in any society registered under this
Act, such society shall not be dissolved without the consent of the
Government of the State of registration. Section 22 provides for
dissolution of a society which is financed wholly or substantially from the
fund of the Government. In respect of such a society, the government is
competent to dissolve it for reasons to be recorded in writing. On the date
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[39]
fixed for dissolution, the registration of the society shall stand cancelled
and the society shall cease to exist as a corporate body. This Section 13
of the Act, 1860 makes it very clear that the dissolution of a society can
be done by its members only in terms thereof. It is nowhere provided in
Section 13 thereof that a society can be dissolved by another society or
for that matter, the FAI in the present case. In other words, the FAI being
an association registered under the same provisions of the said Act,
1860, is not conferred any power thereunder for dissolution of the
petitioner association. Since a registered association cannot dissolve
another registered association, the FAI has no authority or jurisdiction to
dissolve the petitioner association. The FAI being a registered association
registered under the provisions of the Act, 1860 cannot usurp power and
act contrary to the provisions of the said Act. In the affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2, an attempt has been made by the FAI
to contend that the word "dissolve" is referable to the executive
committee of the petitioner association. But the impugned order dated
07-02-2020 does not endorse or substantiate it. Therefore, the impugned
order can be said to be bad in law and is, accordingly, liable to be
quashed and set aside to that extent. In the impugned order issued by the
FAI, the word "suspend" has also been used in front of the word
"dissolve" but it is not clear to this Court in what context, it has been used
by the FAI. Does it mean the suspension of the petitioner association
from being a registered association or does it mean the suspension of the
petitioner association from being a member of the FAI ?. So far as the
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[40]
second part is concerned, it is no doubt true that in terms of the
provisions of its Memorandum of Association, the FAI is conferred power
to suspend its member. In any case, since the petitioner association has
been disaffiliated/ dissolved by the FAI, the word "suspend" used in the
impugned order will have no value at all.
[12.3] As regards the second aspect, the constitution of Ad-hoc
Committee, Article 16(A)(xii) of the Memorandum of Association as
amended till 24-12-2019 provides for appointment of an Ad-hoc
Committee by the General council, after any unit or member is
disaffiliated or suitable action is taken against it for indiscipline,
misbehaviour or any other undesirable activity. A similar power is
conferred upon the General Council under Article XIII(A)(xiii) of the un-
amended Memorandum of Association and in addition thereto, Article
XIII(B)(ii) thereof confers power upon the Executive Committee to appoint
Ad-hoc Committee for specific functions and duties, as and when it is
necessary for the smooth functioning of the association and/ or its
affiliated units. The Executive Committee shall frame necessary rules and
regulations/ terms of the reference for such Ad-hoc Committee. From
these provisions of the amended/ un-amended Memorandum of
Association of the FAI, it is clearly seen that the FAI has the authority to
appoint Ad-hoc Committee and such an action shall be taken by it, only
after the member is disaffiliated or any suitable action is taken against it.
Some corollary issues have arisen in this regard. What is the role to be
played by the Ad-hoc Committee? What will the Ad-hoc Committee do
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[41]
towards the interest of the sportspersons/ players, after the petitioner
association being disaffiliated by the FAI ?. Will it be able to conduct
tournaments regularly in the State ?. Who will bear the expenses for it ?.
From where, will it function ?. Will it have its office in the State
concerned?. What will the district level associations which are the
members of only the State level association, say, the petitioner
association in the present case, do? As long as the registration of the
State level association, say the petitioner association in the present case,
remains valid, they will continue to be its members and will continue to be
governed by the constitution of the State level association. In case the
Ad-hoc Committee happens to continue functioning for years together,
how will it co-ordinate with the district level associations which are not the
members of the FAI? In the event of the sportspersons/ players being
selected by the Ad-hoc Committee to represent the concerned State in
the national and international tournaments, who will bear the expenses ?.
The answers for these issues are not available in the Memorandum of
Associations of the FAI. The FAI needs to apply its mind to resolve all
these issues in terms of its Memorandum of Association, for which the
rules and regulations to be followed by such an Ad-hoc Committee need
to be kept ready to meet such eventualities. In the absence of such rules
and regulations being made known to the stakeholders in advance, any
exercise of power by the Ad-hoc Committee may create a chaos in the
concerned State. So far as the facts and circumstances of the present
case are concerned, since the disaffiliation of the petitioner association
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[42]
having been held by this Court to be bad in law, there is no need of
appointment of an Ad-hoc Committee. Moreover, since the impugned
order has been suspended by this Court while issuing notice to the
respondents vide this Court's order dated 14-02-2020 which remains
continued, the question of appointment of an Ad-hoc Committee will not
arise at all.
[12.4] The third aspect relates to the conduct of a new election of the
petitioner association. In the impugned order issued by the FAI, it is
stated that the Ad-hoc Committee to be appointed by the FAI after a
report of the Inquiry Committee being submitted, will continue till a new
election is conducted as per the National Sports Development Code and
in accordance with the Memorandum of Association/ constitution of the
FAI. This part of the order is absolutely illegal and is without any authority
of law. The petitioner association being a registered association, its
election will be governed by the provisions of the Act, 1860. In other
words, the election of the petitioner association will be held in accordance
with its constitution as approved by the Registrar of Societies, Manipur in
terms of the provisions of the Act, 1860. Article 22 of its constitution
provides the manner as to how the election of the office bearers is to be
held by the petitioner association. The tenure of the Executive Body as
provided in Article 30 of its constitution, is four years to be effective from
1st April of a calendar year to the 31st March. The FAI cannot put or lay
down any condition which is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1860 or
for that matter, the constitution of the petitioner association approved
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[43]
thereunder. A Laxman Rekha will have to be maintained by both of them
in respect of their internal affairs. In this regard, the observations made by
this Court in AMSTA case, are relevant which read as under:
"The relationship between the petitioner association and the
respondent federation commenced from the day the
petitioner association was affiliated as a member and the
petitioner association was required to abide by the rules and
regulations or the guidelines/ instructions as regards the
promotion and development of Sepak Takraw in the country,
some of which mention may be made, namely the timely
payment of fees, nomination of representatives, supply of
information relating to names of office bearers or members or
utilisation of funds being provided by the respondent
federation, the meetings of the Executive Council to be
attended punctually, the conduct of championship in the
State in accordance with the instructions/ guidelines of the
respondent federation, fair selection of players for participating
in the national and international championship etc. which are
illustrative but not exhaustive. Violation of any of such
guidelines/ instructions could be a ground for disaffiliation."
The above observations made by this Court are absolutely
applicable to both the parties in the present case. The stand of the FAI is
that since the election has not been held within six months of grace
period, the disaffiliation has come into effect immediately. At the same
time, it has also been stated that since the petitioner association has
been suspended and dissolved, its executive committee or for that
matter, its office bearers have no authority to continue to be in their office,
leave alone the holding of election. Such a stand taken by the FAI is
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[44]
absolutely unreasonable, as it is contrary to Article 22(b) of the
constitution of the petitioner association which provides that the members
of the executive body shall continue to hold office until the successors are
elected. If the contention of the FAI happens to be accepted by this Court,
who will conduct the election of the petitioner association in accordance
with law? Will it be conducted by the FAI or the Ad-hoc Committee
appointed by it. Is there any authority conferred upon it by law for doing
so? The answer is in the negative. The election of the office bearers will
have to be held in accordance with the constitution approved by the
Registrar of Societies, Manipur which is the appropriate authority as
mentioned in the Act, 1860 as amended from time to time. The main
concern of the FAI is that such election ought to be held in time. It is not
in dispute that for whatever reasons, the election was not held by the
petitioner association before 13-12-2018. What will be the consequence
thereof, is not reflected and is silent in the constitution of the petitioner
association. The reasons given by the petitioner association for its
inability to hold the election in time, are doubtful. However, the case of
the petitioner association is that since the election could not be held
before 13-12-2018, the process for it was initiated with the decision that it
would be held on 09-02-2020. According to it, although the annual
general body meeting was held on 09-02-2020, the agenda of the
election was deferred on the advice of the FAI. The petitioner association
vide its letter dated 12-02-2020 submitted to the FAI all relevant
documents as required by it with a request that the petitioner association
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[45]
be permitted to hold the election. Thereafter, the petitioner association
vide its letter dated 05-03-2020 requested the Registrar of Societies,
Manipur for allowing it to hold the election and to depute an observer,
followed by a letter dated 07-03-2020 addressed to the Returning Officer
to hold the election on 11-03-2020. The election was stated to be held on
11-03-2020 and the proceedings thereof were sent to the Registrar of
Societies, Manipur vide letter dated 13-03-2020 of the Returning Officer
for necessary action. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Registrar of
Societies, Manipur in WP(C) No.537 of 2020, it has been stated that no
appropriate action could be taken by him on the proceedings of the
election on account of the pendency of the writ petition.
[12.5] So far as the power of the disaffiliation is concerned, there can
be no dispute that the FAI has ample power either under the amended or
un-amended Memorandum of Association. Such power is indispensable
in order to control its members within the bounds of its Memorandum of
Association/ constitution. The corollary issue is as to what procedure will
have to be followed by the FAI before a member is disaffiliated by it. No
procedure appears to have been contemplated in its Memorandum of
Association except stating therein that if the election is not held with the
grace period after the expiry of the tenure, the member will stand
automatically disaffiliated. The contention of the petitioner association in
this regard is that the impugned order has been issued by the FAI in
violation of the principles of natural justice and without any application of
mind. The stand of the FAI is that despite its various letters/
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[46]
correspondences being addressed to the petitioner association, it has
failed to comply with the directions with the result that the petitioner
association stands disaffiliated and dissolved. In such circumstances, can
the need of giving a show cause notice be dispensed with automatically
?. In other words, are the principle of natural justice not required to be
followed by the FAI ?. From the perusal of these letters/ correspondences
as mentioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf the respondent No.1
& 2, it is seen that they all are addressed to the Secretary Generals of all
the member associations of the States/UTs requesting them to furnish the
documents as mentioned therein. None of these letters/ correspondences
is addressed to the petitioner association specifically informing that if it
fails to comply with the direction, it will be disaffiliated by the FAI. The
petitioner association was not given an opportunity to explain why the
election was not held in time. The FAI did not take any decision after the
petitioner association being given an opportunity of being heard. The
disaffiliation of the petitioner association by the FAI without following the
principles of natural justice is unreasonable and bad in law being violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
[13] Facts and circumstances of the AMSTA case are not exactly
the same as that of the present case but are identical except in respect of
certain portions of the Memorandum of Association and therefore, the
judgment and order dated 01-03-2016 passed by this Court is applicable
to the present case to the extent indicated and reproduced hereinabove.
Similar controversies have now surfaced in respect of other games and
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[47]
sports which are brought to the notice of this Court and the main reason
for such controversies appears to be due to lack of supervision by the
Government of India over the relationship between the State level and
National level associations in the interest of the sportspersons/ players.
The Government of India needs to pay its attention so as to avoid such
controversies in future in respect of various games and sports. Policy
decisions are being taken by the Government of India from time to time
for the development of the games and sports in the country. The
Government of India is expected to keep in mind, while laying down the
guidelines, the fact that the State level associations and the National level
association which are registered under the provisions of the Act, 1860,
are governed by them and in particular, their respective Memorandum of
Associations/ constitutions approved by the authority concerned under
the said Act. They are not, in a sense, the private parties but are the
authorities entrusted the task of shouldering the responsibility to promote,
regulate, organise and control the games of fencing in the country. They
are inter-connected in the sense that one without the other cannot fulfil
the aims and objects sought to be achieved in their respective
Memorandum of Associations/ constitutions. They ought to act bonafide
in the interest of the sportspersons/ players who bring laurels to the
nation, in order to ensure that such controversies are not brought to the
notice of the Court. They need to be avoided or resolved amicably by all
concerned in the interest of the country. Such controversies, in addition to
the lack of infrastructure and financial constraints, can be said to be some
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[48]
of the grounds resulting in the inability of the people in the country to
exhibit their utmost talents in the international level, in spite of the sincere
efforts being made by the Government of India for the development of
games and sports in the country.
[14] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove,
the instant writ petition being WP(C) No.118 of 2020 stands allowed in
part and consequently, the portion of the impugned order dated 07-02-
2020 towards the dissolution of the petitioner association; the disaffiliation
of the petitioner association and the appointment of the Ad-hoc
Committee is quashed and set aside with the following directions:
(a) The Registrar of Societies, Manipur shall examine whether the
election of the office bearers of the petitioner association,
alleged to have been held on 13-03-2020, has been held in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1860 and in
particular, its constitution or not. If yes with reasons to be
recorded, he shall issue an appropriate order granting approval
to the proceedings of the election;
(b) In case the said election being found to have not been held in
accordance with law as aforesaid, he shall reject the
proceedings of the election;
(c) In the event of the proceedings of the election being rejected
by the Registrar of Societies, Manipur, either he himself or
through his subordinate officers, shall arrange to get the
election of the office bearers of the petitioner association
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
[49]
conducted within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment and order, after informing the FAI about it so
that it could send its observer on the date of election;
(d) In view of the judgment and order passed by this Court in writ
petition being WP(C) No.118 of 2020 above, the writ petition
being WP(C) No.537 of 2020 stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
W.P. (C) No. 118 of 2020 & anr. Contd.../-
