Nalgonda District Cricket Association vs The Hyderabad Cricket Association
2024 Latest Caselaw 4039 Tel

Telangana High Court

Nalgonda District Cricket Association vs The Hyderabad Cricket Association on 3 October, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 18201 OF 2024

O R D E R:

Challenging the Order dated 14.06.2024 passed by

the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge of

Hyderabad Cricket Association in Case No. 1 of 2024, present

Writ Petition was filed seeking a mandamus to declare the said

order as not according to law, illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for

petitioner, Sri M. Hareesh Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent - Hyderabad Cricket Association and Sri Zeeshan

Adnan Mahmood, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter and petitioner filed

a rejoinder to the same. With the consent of all the parties, the

Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission

stage.

4. The case of petitioner Association is that their

Society was registered in 2006 and is affiliated to Hyderabad

Cricket Association. They paid annual fees for 2008, 2009,

2010 and 2011 and its Secretary Srinivas Chakravarthy has

also been provided with Identity Card to attend SGM in 2011

and AGM in 2014. It is further their case that an OP. bearing

S.O.P. No. 587 of 2011 was filed before the Principal District

Judge, Nalgonda under Section 23 of the Societies Registration

Act by the 2nd respondent against the 1st respondent and the

same was dismissed and this fact was also stated by Hyderabad

Cricket Association in their counter filed in Writ Petition No.

19766 of 2021. The Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Addl.

Charge of Hyderabad Cricket Association, without considering

these facts, wrongly allowed Case No. 1 of 2024 in favour of the

2nd respondent vide order dated 14.06.2024, which is subject

matter of challenge in this Writ Petition.

5. The 1st respondent supported the Order of the

Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge and stated

that Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter stating

inter alia that Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the law

laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal

No. 476 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021. On facts, the 2nd

respondent stated that it was registered in 1985 and is

affiliated to Hyderabad Cricket Association. In 2010, one Mr.

Shankar Rao started to claim as Secretary of the 2nd respondent

Association, as such, an OP was filed by the 2nd respondent

before the Principal District Judge Nalgonda. During pendency

of the said O.P., the office bearers of Hyderabad Cricket

Association called both Shankar Rao and Secretary of the 2nd

respondent Syed Ameenuddin to the office of the 1st respondent

and asked them to amicably settle the matter. Accordingly,

Shankar Rao gave up his claim in favour of Mr. Syed

Ameenuddin, who was recognized as Secretary. In support of its

claim, the 2nd respondent filed subscription receipts from 2015

onwards till 2024. The Respondent No. 2 has also filed various

identity cards permitting him to attend meetings from 2016,

2018, 2021, etcetera.

7. The 2nd respondent further stated that in 2018, out

of the blue, Srinivas Chakravarthy under whom petitioner

claims, made a claim that he was the Secretary of the 2nd

respondent Club. Mr. Syed Ameenuddin as Secretary of the 2nd

respondent approached the Ombudsman and Ethics Officer by

filing Case No. 11 of 2018. The then Ombudsman and Ethics

Officer Justice Narsimha Reddy (Retd.) passed three Orders in

favour of the 2nd respondent dated 16.02.2018, 08.03.2018 and

07.04.2018. The then Ombudsman vide Order dated

16.02.2018, categorically directed that Srinivas Chakravarthy

shall not be permitted to represent Nalgonda District Cricket

Association and further left it open to Hyderabad Cricket

Association to verify the records and decide after proper

verification as to who should represent Nalgonda District

Cricket Association. The 1st respondent - Hyderabad Cricket

Association based on the Order of the Ombudsman and

subsequent Orders dated 08.03.2018 and 07.04.2018

recognized Syed Ameenuddin as rightful representative of

Nalgonda District Cricket Association. The 2nd respondent

represented by Syed Ameenuddin participated in league

matches of the 1st respondent from 2018 to 2021. The Orders

passed in Case No. 11 of 2018 remained unchallenged and as

such attained finality.

8. In 2021, the then President Mohammed Azharuddin

for extraneous reasons did not permit the 2nd respondent

represented by Syed Ameenuddin to participate in league

matches. The 2nd respondent, represented by Syed Ameenuddin

filed Writ Petition No. 19766 of 2021, wherein, this Court on two

separate occasions passed interim Orders in favour of the 2nd

respondent, represented by Syed Ameenuddin. When the said

Orders were not complied with, the 2nd respondent, represented

by Syed Ameenuddin filed Contempt Case No. 216 of 2023,

wherein this Court ordered appearance of the then President

Mohammed Azharuddin and the matter is pending for further

adjudication. Special Leave Petition Diary No. 26604 of 2023

was filed by Mohammed Azharuddın challenging the Order of

appearance and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, Writ

Petition No. 19766 of 2021 was disposed of, granting liberty to

the 2nd respondent represented by Syed Ameenuddin to make a

representation to the 1st respondent for participation in future

league matches.

9. The 2nd respondent represented by Syed

Ameenuddin made a representation to the 1st respondent as per

orders in Writ Petition No. 19766 of 2021; when the same was

not acted upon, the 2nd respondent represented by Syed

Ameenuddin made a complaint to the Ethics Officer and

Ombudsman Additional Charge of the 1st respondent. Similarly,

petitioner, one Shaik Raheemuddin and one Mr. Mohammed

Ismail, all made similar claims before the Ethics Officer and

Ombudsman Additional Charge of the 1st respondent, who

registered Case No. 1 of 2024 and heard the parties. After

detailed hearing and considering all the documents produced

before him, the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional

Charge of the 1st respondent held the claim of the 2nd

respondent to be valid and rejected the claim of petitioner,

Shaik Raheemuddin and Mohammed Ismail. The operative

portion of the Order is extracted hereunder:

" In view of the aforesaid foregoing facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner Association is a recognized Club by the 1st Respondent but due to the mischief played without reference to the records of HCA, the Respondents 2 to 4 took advantage and made a frivolous application creating confusion and troubles to the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent HCA shall continue to recognize the Petitioner Association as a recognized Club of HCA and permit the Petitioner to participate in all league matches conducted by the HCA for the Season 2024- 25 onwards. The Petitioner alone is entitled to pay the Annual Subscription Fee, Registration and Renewals."

10. It is further submitted by the 2nd respondent that

for the past 10 years, the 2nd respondent, represented by Syed

Ameenuddin alone has been recognized by Hyderabad Cricket

Association and also participated in all the leagues and

matches. S.O.P. No. 587 of 2011 has no bearing on the present

writ petition as has rightly been held by the Ethics Officer and

Ombudsman Additional Charge of Hyderabad Cricket

Association.

11. Though this Court wanted to confine the present

Writ Petition to whether the same was maintainable or not,

learned counsel for petitioner insisted that this Court should

examine all the factual aspects available on record, as they are

relevant in deciding the issue of fraud which would have a direct

bearing on the maintainability of Writ Petition. It was further

submitted that once the facts were looked into, fraud would be

apparent and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

would never let a fraud perpetuate.

12. Based on the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the respective parties, the points for consideration

are as follows:

(i) Whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a Writ Petition against an Order passed by the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge, deciding inter se disputes between private Clubs registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001?

(ii) Whether the contention of Petitioner that if the factual aspects are looked into by this Court, the same would show the alleged fraud which was committed and thereby would render the present Writ Petition maintainable and enable this Court to examine the validity of the Order passed by the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Addl. Charge can be countenanced in law?

(iii) Whether the Order of the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge calls for any interference, in view of the findings recorded in point Nos. 1 & 2?

13. Point No. (i) Learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent strenuously contends that petitioner and the 2nd

respondent are both private clubs registered under the

Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001; as such, inter se

disputes between them are private disputes and there is no

element of public duty or function involved to maintain a Writ

Petition. It was further contended that the Ethics Officer and

Ombudsman Additional Charge acts as an Arbitrator and

decides the disputes as per the internal dispute resolution

mechanism provided under the Memorandum of Association

and Rules and Regulations of Hyderabad Cricket Association.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent placed reliance on the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed

Azharuddın Vs. K. John Manoj (MANU/TL/0703/2021)

wherein the Division Bench was of the view that Writ Petitions

challenging the Orders passed by the Ethics

Officer/Ombudsman are not maintainable. The relevant portion

is extracted hereunder:

" 40. While it may be true that the remedy under Section 23 of the Act may not be available to the 1st respondent against the order passed by the Ombudsman, it cannot be said that the only other remedy available to him is to file W.P.No. 15310 of 2021 invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He can certainly approach the Civil Court by way of a civil suit for appropriate relief"

43. The Byelaws of a Society, being in the nature of a contract among the members of the Society, which is a private body, cannot be normally enforced under Art 226 of the Constitution of India primafacie.

46. In our opinion, prima facie the disputes considered by the Ombudsman are in the nature of disputes among the Committee or members of a Society or disputes in relation to the affairs of the Society; the position of the Ombudsman of the 3rd respondent is akin to that of an arbitrator

appointed under a contract between private parties; and so his orders may not be amenable to jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India."

14. The aforesaid decision was followed by a Single

Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in

V. Durga Prasad v. Andhra Cricket Association in Writ

Petition No. 27180 of 2021, reported in MANU/AP/0435/2022.

The operative portion is extracted hereunder:

" As the impugned order is passed exercising the powers under Rule 43, 44 and 45 of Bye- laws of ACA following the procedure contemplated therein and Ombudsman is an independent internal dispute redressal mechanism created as per the directions of the Apex Court in the case of BCCI Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and he is like that of an arbitrator created under the contracts and any breach of Bye- laws as held by this Court in the case of Mohammed Azharuddin Vs. K. John Manoj and others MANU/TL/0703/2021, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, as the 1st respondent was registered as a Society under Societies Registration Act. This Court found that after receiving the complaint, petitioner was given fair and full opportunity to file counter and lead evidence, show cause notice was also issued and considered explanation and Ombudsman elaborately dealt with all the series of orders passed by it and its compliance before conducting elections and filing of counter and was given ample opportunity to defend his case and thereby not violated any principles of natural justice Hence, contra contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had illegally terminated the petitioner from the elected office of the Secretary of 1st respondent in blatant violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the 1st respondent Association, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are untenable, as the 2nd

respondent has given full and fair opportunity to the petitioner and it has power to impose penalties for the violation of its orders as it is created as per the orders of the Apex Court. Accordingly, it is held that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court against the impugned order Accordingly, the Issue No. 3 is answered."

15. Learned counsel for petitioner referring to the

rejoinder filed by petitioner, contented that a catena of writs

have been filed before this Court against the 1st respondent,

including a Writ Petition by the 2nd respondent, as such Writ

Petitions are maintainable. The argument advanced by the

learned counsel cannot be countenanced as the Writs so

referred to by petitioner were not challenging the orders passed

by the Ombudsman of the 1st respondent and no specific

judgment was pointed out by petitioner in support of its case as

regards maintainability of the Writ Petition against the Order of

the Ombudsman In fact, the Division Bench in Azharuddin

(supra) took a note of this submission and rejected it. The

relevant portion of the Order is extracted hereunder:

47. Though the learned Senior Counsel sought to rely on the decision of a Division Bench of High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Mohammad Azharuddin Vs. Dr. G. Vivekanand to contend that a Writ Petition challenging the order of an Ombudsman of the 2nd respondent Association is maintainable, there is no such finding recorded in the said order.

16. A perusal of the proceedings before the Ethics

Officer and Ombudsman Addl. Charge would show that

sufficient opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioner to present

its case. The Writ Petitioner was also heard before the impugned

Order was passed. Therefore, there is no procedural infirmity in

passing the impugned Order

17. From the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court in Mohammed Azharuddın's case (supra) as well as

judgment of learned Single Judge in V. Durga Prasad's case

(supra), it is evident that Writ Petition is not maintainable, as

the dispute between petitioner and the 2nd respondent is a

private dispute and the decision rendered by the Ethics Officer

and Ombudsman Additional Charge is akin to that of an

arbitrator appointed under a contract between private parties.

Petitioner has to work out his remedies, if any in accordance

with law.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, it is held that Writ

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not

maintainable before this Court against the impugned order of

the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Addl. Charge of the

Hyderabad Cricket Association.

19. Point No. 2:

On merits, the thrust of petitioner's contention is

its reliance on the Order passed by the Principal District Judge

Nalgonda in S.O.P. No. 587 of 2011. The Ethics Officer and

Ombudsman Additional Charge held in the impugned Order

that Order in S.O.P 587 of 2011 would have no bearing on the

proceedings before him on account of the fact that the 2nd

respondent was registered in 1985 and affiliated much prior to

the claim being made by petitioner. Further, the Secretary

Srinivas Chakravarthy who claims to have been the

representative of petitioner, suffered multiple Orders before the

earlier Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer ie. Hon'ble Justice

Narsimha Reddy (Retd.) The relevant portion of the impugned

Order is extracted hereunder for ready reference.

" 7. The then Ombudsman and Ethics Officer Sri. L. Narsimha Reddy by proceedings in Case No. 11/2018 dated 16.02.2018 held that though notice was issued to one Mr. Srinivas Chakravarthy in the previous hearing on 01.02.2018 requiring him to file reply by today but his address was not available on records, whereas the Petitioner Ameenudin has placed an intimation sent to him by HCA treating him as Secretary of Nalgonda District Cricket Association in the context of Special General Meeting held on 07.01.2018 and in the scenario, it was directed till the matter is decided finally Mr. Srinivas Chakravarthy shall not be permitted to represent Nalgonda District Cricket Association and it is left open to HCA to verify records and decide as to who should represent the Club. Before such representation, they shall take into account the claims of Mr. Ameenudin as well as Mr. Srinivas

Chakravarthy When the case no. 11 of 2018 was heard on 08.03.02018 it was observed that there was no response from Srinivas Chakravarthy when contacted on several occasions but whereas the Petitioner has produced an Identity Card issued in 2015 as well as receipts of payments of annual fee upto date and the applicant has been conducting summer camps events on behalf of Nalgonda Cricket Association and accordingly it was directed that the Nalgonda District Cricket Association through the applicant Mr. Ameenudin shall be entitled to conduct summer camps under intimation to HCA and he shall present full particulars of the participants. The Ombudsman by order dated 07.04.2018 directed to extend all the benefits that are available to other district Association's Secretaries to Sri Ameenudin for the Ensuing Year IPL. T-20 matches."

20. It is pertinent to note that Srinivas Chakravarthy

through whom petitioner claims to have suffered three Orders at

the hands of the learned Ombudsman. The Orders passed by

the then Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer are extracted

hereunder:

"CASE NO.11 IN THE MATTER PERTAINING TO ΝΑΙ GONDA DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION PROCEEDINGS OF HON'BLE JUSTICE L NARSIMHA PEDDY ON 16..03.2018

On the previous date of hearing held on 1-2- 2018, the Office was directed to issue notice to one Mr. Srinivasa Chakravarthy requiring him to file the reply by today. The Treasurer informed me that address of Mr. Srinivasa Chakravarthy is not available in the records of HCA and that his efforts to contact him on phone did not materialize.

The petitioner Mr. Aminuddin has placed before me an intimation sent to him by the HCA treating him as Secretary of Nalgonda District Cricket Association in the context of Special General Meeting held on 7-1-2018.

In this scenario it is directed that till the matter is decided finally Mr. Srinivasa Chakravarthy shall not be permitted to represent the

Nalgonda District Cricket Association. It is left open to HCA to verify the records and decide after proper verification as to who should represent the club. Before such recognition they shall take into account, the claims of Mr. Aminuddin as well as Mr. Srinivasa Chakravarthy

Sd/-

HON. JUSTICE L. NARSIMHA REDDY OMBUDSMAN AND ETHICS OFFICER HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION

"CASE NO.11/18 IN THE MATTER PERTAINING TO NALGONDA DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION PROCEEDINGS OF HON'BLE JUSTICE L. NARSIMHA REDDY ON 8-3-2018

The Office informed me that there is no response from Mr. Sreenivasa Chakravarthy when contacted on several occasions. The applicant has produced an identity card issued in the year 2015 as well as receipts of payments of annual fee up to date. It is also stated that the applicant has been conducting the summer camp events on behalf of Nalgonda District Cricket Association and he pleaded that unless specific orders are issued it will be difficult to conduct the event.

Hence it is directed that the Nalgonda District Cricket Association through the applicant herein shall be entitled to conduct the summer camps under due intimation to the Hyderabad Cricket Association. He shall present full particulars of the participants and shall not collect any fee from the participants.

Sd/-

HON. JUSTICE L. NARSIMHA REDDY OMBUDSMAN AND ETHICS OFFICER HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION

Hyderabad 07/4/2018

From V. Lakshani Kantha Reddy I/C Secretary to the Hon'ble Ombudsman, RGICS, Uppal, Hyderabad

To The Chief Executive Officer, RGICS, Hyderabad

I am to state that there is some dispute in respect of Nalgonda District Cricket Association. One Sri Ameenuddin claimed that he is Secretary of the Association. There as directed by the Hon'ble Ombudsman we have tried to contact the Respondent Mr Srinivas Chakravarthy in Case No. 11/2018 and for three consecutive hearings the Respondent could not turn up.

Therefore, now Hon'ble Ombudsman directed to inform you to extend all the benefits that are available other district association Secretaries to Sri. Ameenuddin for the ensuing I.P.L. T20 Matches

Yours Sincerely Sd/-

I/C Secretary to Hon'ble Ombudsman Office of the Ombudsman The Hyderabad Cricket Association, RGICS, Uppal, Hyderabad-500039 TS.

21. There is no dispute about passing of these orders.

A conjoint reading of the aforesaid orders makes it abundantly

clear that the then Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer had

restrained Srinivas Chakravarthy from representing Nalgonda

District Cricket Association and granted permission to the 2nd

respondent to conduct summer camps and also directed the 1st

respondent to extend all benefits available to District

Associations to the 2nd respondent. It is admitted before this

Court that there was no challenge to the above-referred Orders

of the Ombudsman and they attained finality.

22. Petitioner having suffered multiple Orders and

having kept idle for the past decade without challenging them

cannot be permitted to rise from slumber and unset the events

which have taken place over a decade. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in a recent judgement in Mrinmoy Maity v.

Chanda Koley (2024 SCC Online SC 551) tracing the law from

1964 onwards categorically held as follows:

" 9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity

(supra) held, delay of three years in asserting a right to be

sufficient to non-suit petitioner therein. Applying the aforesaid

judgment to the facts of the present case, petitioner even as per

its own case was a mute spectator since 2011 when it last paid

subscription and made a claim in 2024 ie. after a lapse of nearly

13 years. As can be seen from the Memorandum of Association

and Rules and Regulations of Hyderabad Cricket Association,

the affiliated clubs pay subscription yearly, participate in

leagues and attend AGM's, SGM's, etcetera. Petitioner on

account of its laxity in asserting its right has allowed the cause

of action to drift away. The present attempt to rekindle the

lapsed cause of action cannot be entertained more so in a

proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

24. On the contrary, prima facie case and balance of

convenience is in favour of the 2nd respondent as petitioner did

not choose to question recognition of the 2nd respondent,

admittedly, for the past decade. Further, this Court on two

separate occasions, by virtue of orders passed in L.A. No. 1 of

2021 in Writ Petition No. 19766 of 2021, dated 24.08.2021 and

I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in Writ Petition No. 19766 of 2021, dated

24.08.2022 recognizing the right of the 2nd respondent No. 2,

passed Orders in favour of the 2nd respondent. The operative

portion of the Order passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in Writ Petition

No. 19766 of 2021, dated 24.08.2022 is extracted hereunder:

" Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent states that the petitioner

association was permitted to participate in all the tournaments being conducted under the aegis of 1st respondent-Respondent No. 1, and the respondents would continue the same even during the current season of 2022-23, The said statement of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent is taken on record In view of the above submission, pending further orders, the petitioner association and its members shall be permitted to take part in all the tournaments during the current year cricket season also

25. A reading of the aforesaid Order categorically shows

that though a formal counter was filed opposing Writ Petition,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for Hyderabad Cricket

Association categorically conceded before this Court that it

would continue to recognize and permit the 2nd respondent to

participate in league matches.

26. It is pertinent to note that a reading of the order in

SOP. No. 587 of 2011 reveals that at internal Page No. 8, Para

No.5, the District Court records that petitioner was not present

continuously for multiple hearings, and in the O.P., it did not

choose to argue the case. Further, the said Shankar Rao never

came forward claiming any right as against the 2nd respondent.

This finding coupled with the annual subscription receipts

issued to the 2nd respondent from 2015 onwards, gives

credence to the contention of the 2nd respondent that the matter

was settled between Shankar Rao and the 2nd respondent,

represented by Syed Ameenuddin and the 1st respondent being

privy to this arrangement started recognizing the 2nd respondent

represented by Syed Ameenuddin from 2015 onwards.

27. Another interesting fact in the Order in S.O.P. No.

587 of 2011 is at Page No. 13, Para No. 13, wherein the District

Court recorded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the

dispute but went ahead to decide the case. The relevant portion

of the Order is extracted hereunder

" 13. Moreover, as per the rulings relied by the respondent, it is considered that the petition should have been filed before the court at Hyderabad or even at Ranga Reddy district as the registered office of the respondent is at Hyderabad on the ground that the recognized agency or under the control of the respondent and the respondent office is situated at Hyderabad....."

28. The District Court, having come to the conclusion

that they have no jurisdiction, went on to render a finding on

merits, that too in the absence of petitioner, in violation of Order

IX Rule 8 of CPC, cannot prima facie be appreciated. Therefore,

the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge was right

in not giving credence to the Order passed in S.O.P. No. 587 of

2011.

29. Another very vital fact to be noted is that the Order

passed in S.O.P. No. 587 of 2011, would not come to the aid of

petitioner as he is neither a party to the proceedings nor it is

claiming through the said Shankar Rao. The Order in S.O.P. No.

587 of 2011, at best, could have operated as res judicata

between Syed Ameenuddin and the 1st respondent. The 1st

respondent, having succeeded in the O.P., continued to

recognise the 2nd respondent and as such by acquiescence

rendered the Order in S.O.P. No. 587 of 2011 ineffective. The

Order in S.O.P. No. 587 of 2011 is not an order in rem, as such

reliance placed on the same not only by petitioner but also by

Shaik Raheemuddin and Mohammed Ismail to claim a right

onto themselves to be affiliated to the 1st respondent was rightly

negated by the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional

Charge.

30. The subsequent events categorically show that the 1st

respondent has been recognizing the 2nd respondent alone and

therefore, the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional

Charge of the 1st respondent was right in holding that

proceedings in S.O.P. 587 of 2011 have no bearing and would

not aid petitioner.

31. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, even on

merits of the matter, petitioner has not been able to establish

any case much less a case of fraud, as alleged. The balance of

convenience is also in favour of the 2nd respondent, who has

shown continuous affiliation to the 1st respondent - Association

supported by documents of payment of subscriptions, attending

of AGMs and other Special Meetings and participation in league

matches. On the contrary, N. Srinivas Rao, Secretary of

petitioner has not filed a single document to show that

Hyderabad Cricket Association recognized him as Secretary of

Nalgonda District Cricket Association.

32. Point No. iii.

In view of the findings recorded in relation to point

Nos. 1 and 2, the Order passed by the Ethics Officer and

Ombudsman Addl. Charge calls for no interference. Therefore,

Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly

dismissed without costs. It is clarified by way of abundant

caution that the observations made are for the purpose of this

case and they shall not be construed as making any comments

or giving any finding on the merits or demerits of the case.

33. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any

shall stand closed.

-------------------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 03rd October 2024

ksld