Manipur High Court
The Gymnastics Federation Of ... vs Shri Dr. S. Shantikumar Singh on 18 February, 2021
MAYAN Digitally
signed by
GLAMBA MAYANGLAMB
Item No. 1
(through video conferencing)
AM CHANU
M NANDINI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date:
CHANU 2021.02.20 AT IMPHAL
NANDINI 11:01:42
+05'30'
W.A. No. 53 of 2020
The Gymnastics Federation of India (GFI), represented by it's
President, namely, Sudhir Mital, s/o late Shri Gyaneshwar Prasad
Mital, residing at No. C4/2, Ground Floor, SDA, New Delhi -
110016
Appellant.....
Vs.
1. Shri Dr. S. Shantikumar Singh, aged about 62 years, S/o (L)
S. Tombi Singh, a resident of Chingamakha Yanglem Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. - Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur -
795008.
2. The Secretary General, Indian Olympic Association, Olympic
Bhawan, B-29, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110016.
Principal Respondents......
3. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry
ofYouth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi -110001.
4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001.
Proforma Respondents......
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the appellant : Mr. Th. Ibohal, Sr. Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. I. Lalitkumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ruchi Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Ajoy Pebam, Advocate
Date of Order : 18.02.2021
Page 1
ORDER
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.)
[1] The Gymnastics Federation of India, New Delhi (GFI), filed this
writ appeal aggrieved by the Judgment & Order dated 26.11.2020 passed by a
learned Judge of this Court in MC[W.P(C)] No. 142 of 2020 [Ref: W.P. (C) No.
385 of 2020], whereby its claim that it was a necessary party and its prayer for
impleadment as the 4threspondent in the writ petition were rejected.
It may be noted that the learned Judge however permitted the
GFI to assist the Court as an intervener if it so desired, for which appropriate
action had to be taken by it in accordance with law.
[2] The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein assailing
the letters dated 27.04.2020 and 06.07.2020 issued by the Under Secretary,
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India. Thereby, the President
of the GFI was informed that the Government of India was not willing to
recognize the GFI on the strength of the elections held on 05.11.2019 owing to
certain violations of the provisions of the National Sports Development Code,
2011. More particularly, the stand of the Government of India was that the 1 st
respondent/writ petitioner could not hold the post of Secretary General in the
elected body as he had already served 2(two) consecutive terms in the GFI
and his election for a third consecutive term without the cooling off period of
4(four) years was violative of the National Sports Development Code, 2011.
[3] While so, the GFI, represented by its President, filed the subject
application in the writ petition seeking to be impleaded as the 4th respondent
therein, claiming to be a necessary party to the litigation. This application came
to be rejected by the order under appeal, as stated supra.
Page 2
[4] Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior counsel appearing for the GFI,
would argue that the GFI is vitally interested in the outcome of this litigation as
it would have an impact on its future elections in the context of the
interpretation of the National Sports Development Code, 2011. He would
therefore contend that the GFI ought to have been added as a party to the writ
petition to enable it to have its say and participate in the proceedings. Learned
senior counsel, however, concedes that the GFI would be in a position to do so
even in the capacity of an intervener. As already noted supra, the learned
Judge granted liberty to the GFI to file an appropriate application to intervene
in the matter and assist the Court, if it so desired.
[5] Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner, fairly agrees that the GFI would be entitled to file
such an application in the light of the liberty granted and, in that capacity, if
allowed, file an affidavit setting out its stance so as to assist the learned Judge
in the adjudication of the writ petition.
[6] Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC empowers the Court to add a party in
the event the Court opines, at any stage of the proceedings, that the name of a
person ought to be joined as a party as the presence of such person is
necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon
and settle all questions involved in the case. Applying this standard, the
learned Judge found that the GFI was not a 'necessary party' to the writ
petition. We find no reason to disagree with this finding of the learned Judge.
[7] However, it may be noted that Order I Rule 8-A CPC empowers
the Court to permit a person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on
a question of law which is directly and substantially in issue and in which such
person or body of persons has an interest and permit, in public interest, such
Page 3
person or body of persons to not only present such opinion but also take part
in the proceedings.
[8] In the case on hand, it cannot be disputed that the GFI would
have an interest in the interpretation of the National Sports Development Code,
2011, which would impact its elections in future in the context of re-election to
certain posts for consecutive terms. To that extent, it would be a body of
persons which clearly has an interest in the question of law involved in the writ
petition. The GFI may therefore be entitled to intervene in the proceedings in
that capacity.
[9] In that view of the matter, it is made clear that if the GFI files an
application seeking to intervene in the proceedings and assist the Court and
such an application is allowed, the GFI would also be entitled to file an affidavit
setting out its stance and also advance arguments on the strength thereof so
as to assist in the adjudication of the lis. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner
would be entitled to respond to such affidavit and file its reply thereto. It would
then be for the learned Judge to take the said affidavits/contentions under
advisement, as deemed fit and proper, while deciding the case.
Making this position clear, the writ appeal is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
Page 4
