Mohd. Azharuddin vs Mr. K. John Manoj
2021 Latest Caselaw 2402 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                                    &

         THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

                           WA No.300 of 2021

JUDGMENT ::

This writ appeal is filed against the interim order passed in IA

No.4 of 2021 in WP No.15310 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the

order dated 04-07-2021 passed by the learned Ombudsman who set

aside the resolution passed by five members of the Hyderabad Cricket

Association (HCA) purportedly resolving to suspend the duly elected

President and restraining the President from proceeding further in the

affairs of the HCA has been suspended by way of an interim order.

This writ appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition.

Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that no reasons are given muchless any satisfaction

recorded in passing the impugned order despite the fact that the issue

involved various contentious issues and the interim order has an effect

of allowing the writ petition itself, which itself is in violation of

principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the respondent-

writ petitioner is not entitled to seek relief in issues pertain to

appointment of Ombudsman, which involves questions of fact,

examining of material facts, in proceedings under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India; and the only remedy is by of proceedings under

Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act before the civil Court. It is

also stated that the appointments to the post of Ombudsman and

Ethics Officer under the Byelaws of the HCA are contractual in nature

and therefore recourse to public law remedy is impermissible and have

to be redressed under common law remedy. It is stated that earlier

this Court in CRP No.117 of 2021, which was filed against the order

passed in IA No.674 of2020 in PSROP No.17 of 2020 by the XXV Addl.

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was allowed and the RSROP

has been dismissed and the same has been challenged in the Supreme

Court, but as on today, no interim order is granted against the very

dismissal of the PRSROP No.17 of 2020 and all these aspects ought to

have been considered by the learned single Judge before passing the

interim order.

Sri S. Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent (writ petitioner) submits that under Byelaw 40 (1) of the

HCA, there is a requirement of appointment of an Ombudsman and

under Bylaw 39 (1) there is also a requirement of appointment of an

Ethics Officer and in spite of being informed that a retired Chief Justice

and a retired Judge of this Court are appointed as Ombudsman and

Ethics Officer respectively, the Ombudsman appointed by the appellant

chosen to issue show cause notices to the members who are against

his decisions, though his candidature was rejected the Annual General

Body meeting of the HCA. Learned counsel, however, fairly concedes

that two groups are functioning in their own style nullifying the actions

of the other group. Learned senior counsel does not dispute that the

impugned order hardly reflect any reasons. He also submits that the

Ombudsman has no power to suspend the members and it is only the

Apex Council which has got the power to do so as per Bye-law 41 (c)

of the Bye-laws

After hearing both the learned senior counsel and taking an

overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the matter

requires comprehensive hearing and consideration of all the

contentious issues raised, including prima facie case, balance of

convenience and irreparable loss to grant or refuse to grant the interim

order. The impugned interim order does not reflect prima facie

reasons, therefore, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded

for fresh consideration.

Learned senior counsel for the parties expressed readiness and

pleaded for early hearing in view of the urgency involved in the

matter, hence we request the learned single Judge to take up the

matter for hearing on 23-08-2021 in view of the urgency pleaded in

the matter. It is needles to observe that the League matches as to the

game of Cricket by the different teams, as per the schedules fixed and

approved earlier, shall go on. Pending disposal of the IAs before the

learned single Judge, the Apex Council shall not take any decisions.

The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand disposed of. There shall

no order as to costs.

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER,J

Dated: 17-08-2021 NRG

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

&

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

WA No.300 of 2021

17-08-2021

NRG