Telangana High Court

Neredimelli Deepshika vs The State Of Telangana on 10 July, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

                                     1



        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                   WRIT PETITION No.2714 of 2024

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring

the action of 2nd respondent in issuing the notice dated 27.01.2024 to

the 3rd respondent wherein the 2nd respondent has banned the

petitioner from participating in any of the sanctioned tournaments for a

period of two years w.e.f. 26.01.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of

the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

2. Heard Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner;

and the learned Government Pleader for Sports for respondent No.1,

and Mr. VankinaAllu for respondents 2 and 3.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments in the

writ affidavit, is that the petitioner is a professional badminton player

and participated in several tournaments sanctioned by the respondent

authorities; that the 2nd respondent had earlier addressed a letter dated

22.04.2023 to the 3rd respondent herein seeking explanation alleging on

two birth certificates of the petitioner BAI ID 2256 and further directing

the 3rd respondent to seek explanation from the petitioner by treating

the alleged two birth certificates as age fraud within 15 days; that the

letter dated 22.04.2023 was not marked to the petitioner and a copy of

the same was forwarded through email to the petitioner by late Sri

PaniRao, the then District Secretary of Hyderabad District Badminton

Association; that the petitioner replied through her mother on

26.04.2023 to the 3rd respondent explaining true facts stating that the

date of birth 09.06.2007 does not belong to the petitioner and it is

fabricated document by some unknown persons; that along with the

said reply, the petitioner enclosed necessary documents; that after

submitting the reply dated 26.04.2023 by the petitioner to respondents

2 and 3, nothing was communicated to the petitioner by either

respondents nor any enquiry was conducted before initiating punitive

action against petitioner; that so to the surprise of petitioner on

11.09.2023 the 3rd respondent did not allow the petitioner to participate

in YONEX SUNRISE 35th Junior National Badminton championship

2023 U-17 Girls Singles Sanctioned Tournament and the name of

petitioner was missing from selected list; that the action of respondents

was challenged before this Court by way of filing WP No.25622 of 2023

and an interim direction dated 13.09.2023 was given to the respondents

to permit the petitioner to participate in the said tournament; that the

writ petition was disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits

of the matter, directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the show

cause notice dated 16.10.2023 as per time stipulated therein, and

respondent No.2 shall conduct enquiry after affording an opportunity of

personal hearing to th petitioner; that as respondent No.3 issued Show

Cause notice dated 16.10.2023, the petitioner has submitted reply

dated 11.11.2023 to the Show Cause notice; that the respondents never

conducted any enquiry nor have called the petitioner for personal

hearing; that while the petitioner was selected and prepared for YONEX

SUNRISE All India Senior Ranking Badminton Tournament 2024 to be

conducted from 31.01.2024-06.02.2024 at Banagalore by 2nd

respondent the petitioner got impugned notice dated 27.01.2024 issued

by 2nd respondent to 3rd respondent wherein the 2nd respondent banned

the petitioner from participating in any of the sanctioned tournaments

for a period of two years w.e.f 26.01.2024; that the action of

respondents in issuing impugned notice dated 27.01.2024 is arbitrary

and in contravention of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of

hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the said order nor

an enquiry was conducted despite this Court directing the respondents;

that due to issuance of impugned order the career of the petitioner is at

stake as she is not able to participate in tournament to be conducted

during 31.01.2024-06.02.2024 at Bangalore.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions on

the lines of writ affidavit, has drawn the attention of the Court ot

paragraphs 4, 5.2, 7.1.1 relating to National Code Against Age Fraud In

Sports, and also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Mohindhr Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi 1.

(1978) 1 SCC 405

5. A counter affidavit is filed by the General Secretary, Badminton

Association of Telangana on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The sum

and substance of the counter affidavit is that there exists two public

record entries of date of birth of writ petitioner. Respondent No.2 sent a

letter dated 22.04.2023 to respondent No.3 seeking explanation on

birth records having BAI ID 22756, thereby directing respondent No.3

to seek explanation from petitioner and the said letter was enclosed

with two online birth records dated 09.01.2008 and 09.06.2007; that

the petitioner through response letter dated 23.04.2023 provided that

tehbirth certificate with date of birth as 09.06.2007 does not belong to

the petitioner and has been created by some unknown persons to defeat

her career; that the petitioner in her response further provided 1st

Standard School admission record which is a mandatorily required

document could not be produced as the school attended by the

petitioner i.e., Smart Techno School, Kukatpally, has shut down long

ago; that as per the response received from the petitioner, respondent

No.3 started enquiry into the matter and sent letters to the petitioner,

Medical Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Suryapet, and

Suryapet Municipality, who are all related to the matter to seek

explanation regarding existence of two birth record entries of the

petitioner; that the Medical Superintendent vide letter

Rc.No.Slp/MRB/GGH-SRPT/2023 dated 06.09.2023 replied stating

that the birth details in the name of Smt. NeredimelliHaritha, mother of

Ms. NeredimalliDeepshikha were not found in their medical records on

either of the dates i.e., 09.06.2007 and 09.01.2008; that the Suryapet

Municipality vide letter No.F2/1628/2023 dated 06.09.2023 replied

stating that Smt. Shailaja w/o Ramesh (Child Gender Female) was

appearing for registration No.1003/2007 dated 14.07.2007; that Smt.

Bujji, w/o Sudhakar (Child Gender Male) was appearing for registration

No.6069/2008 dated 04.04.2008; that Sri NeredimalliPradeep, father of

petitioner applied for change of details in records by giving information

on 06.08.2016 through Mee-Seva (Online) and later obtained the date of

birth certificate after correction in the names of the father, mother,

child and gender of the child against registration No.6069/2008; that in

the light of information received through above mentioned letters from

Medical Superintendent of Government General hospital, Suryapet and

Suryapet Municipality, respondent No.3, prima facie found the response

given by the petitioner to be suspicious and anticipated that the

petitioner could be involved in an Age Fraud and thereby the

petitioner's BAI ID was temporarily frozen pending further proceedings

and the petitioner was prohibited from participating in YONEX Sunrise

35th sub-junior National Badminton Championships 2023; that

aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed

W.P.no.25622 of 2023 before this Court and obtained an interim order

dated 13.09.2023 whereunder this Court directed respondents 2 and 3

to permit the petitioner to participate in YONEX Sunrise Sub-Junior

National Badminton Championship 2023; that in pursuance of

Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedure of BAI (Age Related

Issues), respondent No.3 sent a Notice to Prove Innocence dated

16.10.2023; that the notice also highlighted the documents upon which

respondent No.3 relied alleging the Age Fraud and further called upon

the petitioner to furnish proof of innocence against the evidence within

a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of above notice; that

subsequently in its final order dated 01.11.2023 this Court directed the

petitioner to submit explanation to the Show Cause notice issued by

respondent No.3, as per the time stipulated therein; that this Court

further held that on receipt of such explanation, respondent No.3 shall

conduct enquiry after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal

hearing duly intimating the date of hearing in advance; that the

petitioner responded with reply notice dated 11.11.2023 stating that the

documentary evidence received from the Government General Hospital,

Suryapet and Suryapet Municipality are not reliable as the same were

issued without seeking explanation from the petitioner; that the date of

birth was given by the petitioner's parents themselves and denying the

facts stated by Government authorities is very illogical and irrational on

the part of petitioner's parents; that on 27.01.2024, the Age Fraud

Committee conducted a meeting and after keeping all documentary

evidence available against the petitioner, the Age Fraud Committee

passed an order dated 26.01.2024 banning the petitioner for a period

of two years according to the SOP guidelines of BAI from participating in

any tournaments sanctioned by respondents 2 and 3; that aggrieved by

the order of respondent No.2 dated 26.01.2024 the present writ petition

was filed before this Court; that soon after vakalat in the current

petition was filed, respondent No.3 sent a mail to the petitioner's father

on 27.02.2024 to attend Age verification committee meeting and from

that day onwards the petitioner's father kept on postponing the Age

verification committee meeting and finally the petitioner's mother

attended the same on 21.03.2024. It is further stated in the counter

that the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate dated 06.02.2024 produced

by the petitioner in this writ petition is fabricated as the LFG Digi

School was established in the year 2013 and the Bonafide and Conduct

Certificate dated 06.02.2024 of the petitioner shows that she studied

from June 2011 to April 2013 which is absolutely not possible; and that

an enquiry was conducted by respondent No.3 regarding the veracity of

Bonafide certificate, and a letter dated 09.02.2024 was issued by the

Head Mistress of above mentioned school stating that the Bonafide and

Conduct Certificate is FALSE and the same was issued upon the

request of petitioner's parents and thereby the said certificate should be

considered null and void; that an email date 27.02.2024 was sent to the

father of petitioner asking him to be present on 28.02.2024 before Age

Verification Committee members of respondent No.2 subsequent to

which through a telephonic conversation it was informed by petitioner's

father that the petitioner's examinations are going on and asked to

reschedule the meeting; that subsequently another email dated

27.02.2024 was sent to the petitioner's father requesting for a

convenient date to attend the meeting at the earliest in the next ten

days as the same had to be intimated to the members of Age Fraud

Committee; that on 02.03.2024 the father of petitioner replied to the

respondents email dated 27.02.2024 wherein he changed the stand

stating that she had undergone some surgery and that some post-

surgical complications developed and she was asked by the doctors to

stay under observation for a few weeks and thereby they would not be

able to travel and the reports dated 22.02.2024 were enclosed along

with the email; that the reports dated 22.02.2024 show that the

petitioner was admitted on 22.02.2024 and discharged on 23.02.2024

after administering IV fluids, IV antibiotics, analgesics, antacids and

supportive medications and does not mention any surgery; that benefit

of the doubt was given to the petitioner and a reply to the

abovementioned email was sent on the same day requesting the father

of petitioner to confirm the date of meeting between 10.03.2024 and

15.03.2024 as per their convenience; that an email was received from

petitioner's father dated 11.03.2024 with an attachment informing that

WP No.2714 dated 2024 has been scheduled for hearing on 13.03.2024

and accordingly the meeting was fixed for 21.03.2024; that in the

meeting held on 21.03.2024 at the office of respondent No.2 in New

Delhi, the mother of petitioner appeared before Age Fraud Committee

and was asked to produce any further documents/ certificates in

support of petitioner; that the mother of petitioner produced the same

documents that are already with the committee; that the mother of

petitioner was given an opportunity to provide justification for not

accepting the letters given by the office of medical superintendent

Government Hospital, Suryapet dated 06.09.2023 and office of medical

council dated 06.09.2023 dated 06.09.2023 and office of municipal

council dated 06.09.2023 stating that the birth details (registration

No.6059/2008) provided by the parents of petitioner actually belong to

the mother of a male child; that in response to the above question, the

mother of the petitioner had no explanation except saying that she did

not have any idea how the concerned departments stated this and that

it can be manipulated. With respect to BonafideandConduct Certificate

produced by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter that the mother of

petitioner in her defence said that she was informed by the head

Mistress of the School that the School does not maintain the records for

the classes Nursery, LKG and UKG and she has no idea how the Head

Mistress issued the letter calling the certificate null and void; on

questioning the mother of petitioner that when the school did not

maintain any records for the above said classes, how did they issue this

letter, the mother of petitioner responded that the school had 2

branches and that the name of the school was changed later; that the

committee members were not satisfied with the justifications given by

the mother of petitioner and thereby after due consideration of the

documentary evidence by Government Authorities and the letter given

by the Head Mistress, the members of the committee decided to give the

mother of petitioner 15 days time for producing written signed letters

from all departments i.e., Office of Medical Superintendent, Government

Hospital Suryapet; Office of Municipal Council, Suryapet, and Head

Mistress of LFG Digi School stating that the documents given earlier by

them to respondents 2 and 3 were false, failing which the decision of

Age Verification Committee earlier would be construed as final; that the

15 days period was over by 05.04.2024 and the mother of petitioner

failed to send any information to the Committee; that principles of

natural justice also apply to all other players in that age group who

were wronged by the actions of petitioner and lost their golden chance

of achieving medals and encouragement that they rightly deserve; that

the petitioner by committing age fraud occupied a dominant position

her group and took away other players' chance to flourish for a very

long period which loss cannot be repaired or made good to them in their

lifetime; that respondent No.2 through Circular dated 06.06.2023

informed all the affiliated state associations abut one of its schemes

namely Voluntary Age Rectification Scheme (VARS) for discrepancy in

age records of registered players; that the players were given a chance

to correct their date of birth within a specified window of 20 days

starting from 06.06.2023 to 2.06.2023; that this scheme categorically

reiterated the intention of respondent No.3 that players who do not avail

themselves of this scheme and are later found guilty of age fraud will

face severe penalties, including disqualification from BAI sanctioned

tournaments, two year ban, FIR against parents and potential

disciplinary actions; that the opportunity was given to everyone

including the petitioner to make corrections but the same was not

utilized by the petitioner; that one misstep in the procedure by

respondent No.2 and 3 should not be construed as violation of

principles of natural justice which was immediately corrected; and the

substantial facts and evidences should be taken into account which are

blatant false hoods provided by the parents to the Age Fraud Committee

with reckless attitude and to mislead the Court; that it is settled

position of law that any person approaching the Court with unclean

hands shall not be entertained; that the conduct of petitioner is blatant

abuse of process of law.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Sports has drawn the attention

of the Court to various material documents filed along with the counter

affidavit and would submit that the enquiry conducted by the

respondent authorities with respect to petitioner's age by verifying with

the Medical Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Suryapet,

and Suryapet Municipality did not corroborate the claim of the

petitioner with regard to her age, and further the Bonafide and Conduct

Certificate produced by the petitioner from LFG Digi School stating that

she studied from 2011 to 2013 is absolutely false document as the

school was established in the year 2013 and further as per the

directions of this Court in WP No.25622 of 2023, the respondents have

given the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passed the

impugned order and therefore there is no violation of principle of

natural justice and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and

hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the respective rival submissions, and perusing

the material on record, and also the Annexure 'D' of the National Code

against Age Fraud in Sports, and the judgment relied on the learned

counsel for the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that the judgment in

Mohindhr Singh Gill (1 supra)is not applicable to the present facts of

the case inasmuch as in the present case, as the opportunity of

hearing, including personal hearing and examining of documents

presented by the petitioner was carried out by the respondent

authorities before passing the impugned order. It is pertinent to note

that in the WP No.25622 of 2023, this Court by order dated 01.11.2023

disposed of the writ petition by observing as under:

"6. In view of the same, since respondent No.2 has already issued notice for conducting enquiry to determine the age of the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, directs the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023 as per the time stipulated therein and on receipt of such explanation, respondent No.2 shall conduct enquiry, after affording her an opportunity of personal hearing duly intimating the date of hearing in advance to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."

8. It is to be further noted that pursuant to the above direction of

this Court in WP No.25622 of 2023, the Badminton Association of India

conducted Age Verification Committee Meeting on 21.03.2024 at 2:25

PM at BAI Office, New Delhi, which was attended by Mrs. Haritha,

mother of the petitioner and it is recorded in the Minutes as under:

"One Bonafide Certificate of LKG & UKG of LFG digihighSchooldt. 06/02/2024 which has already been sent to the email ID of Badminton Association of Telangana on 07/02/2024, based on which, verification / enquiry was done by Badminton Association of Telangana. A letter of the Head mistress of the same school was handed over by Sh. Kanuri Vamsidhar, Treasurer (BAT) to Sh. Sanjay Mishra, ShriSandeepHeble read the letter in front of the committee members which stated that :The Bonafide and conduct Certificate stating that DeepshikaNeredimilli daughter of PradeepNeredimilli was a bonafide student of this school in class LKG to UKG from June 2011 to April 2013 is false and was issued under request of her parents. Hence the bonafide and conduct certificate issued on 06/02/2024 should be considered null and void." Mrs. Haritha in her defence said that she was informed by the Headmistress that the school does not maintain the records for the class Nursery, LKG & UKG and she has no idea on how the Headmisress issues this statement. Sh. SurinderMahajan questioned Mrs. Haritha that if the school do not have any records, then how did they issue this letter. Sh. Kanuri Vamsidhar also told the committee during the enquiry by the BAT, it was found that the said school was established in the year 2013 and is only meant for High School classes. Mrs. Hartha responded that the school had 2 branches and the name of the school was changed later.

Since the committee members were not satisfied with the explanation/justifications given by Mrs. Haritha, and the committee after due consideration of the official documents, issued by the Hospital and the Municipality, suryapet and the letter of the headmistress of the school, decided to give Mrs. Haritha a 15 days time for producing written signed letter from all the departments, i.e., Office of the Medical Superintendent, Government General hospital, Suryapet, Office of the Municipal Council, Suryapet and Headmistress of LFG digi High School stating that the documents given earlier by Badminton AssociationofTelangana / Badminton Association of India were false th latest by 5 April, 2024, failing which the decision already taken by the Age Verification Committee will be continued and final."

9. A perusal of the Minutes of the Age Verification Committee of

Badminton Association of India on 21.03.2024 would show that the

mother of the petitioner attended the meeting in person, and she was

confronted with regard to the Bonafide and Conduct Certificate

produced in support of the age of petitioner from LFG digi High School

and also the duration of study of the petitioner in LFG digi High School,

and the explanation / justification regarding the age and also the said

document as well as the duration of study of the petitioner in LFG digi

High School in support of the age of petitioner, was not found

satisfactory by the respondent authorities. It is to be noted that the

crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that principles of natural

justice have not been followed by the respondent authorities inasmuch