Telangana High Court

G P Palguna vs The State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                  WRIT PETITION No. 13549 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...........to declare the action of the 5th Respondent in issuing the impugned Election Notification dated 19.05.2024 of the 2nd Respondent Association as per the Model Election Guidelines of NSDCI, 2011 instead of the byelaws of the 2nd Respondent Association without the Resolution of the Executive Committee of the 2nd Respondent Association whose term under Bye-law No.15 is not over or preparing a tentative Voters list, call for objections and thereafter, preparing the final Voters' list as per Byelaw No 21(ii) of the 2nd Respondent Association and not by Respondents 4 and 5 and straightaway issuing the Electoral College dated 25.05.2024 by Respondents 4 and 5 incorrectly deleting the name of Petitioner on the ground that he completed two terms as Secretary is without jurisdiction as illegal arbitrary contrary to the Byelaw No 21 (ii) of the 2nd Respondent Association and consequently to set aside the impugned Election Notification dated 19.05.2024 and the Electoral College dated 25.05.2024.............."

2. Heard Sri. S. Ashok Anand Kumar, Iearned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri N. Gangadhar, learned counsel for

petitioner, Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. A.

Satya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent - Telangana

Olympic Association (for short, 'TOA').

3. Petitioner asserts that TOA is registered under the Telangana

Societies Registration Act, 2001 and is affiliated with Indian Olympic

Association. It is responsible for overseeing all sports activities of

various affiliated Sports Associations in Telangana. The 1st respondent

has allocated land and provided financial assistance for the

construction of Olympic Bhavan as well as for conducting sports

activities within the state. According to a communication from the

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

Indian Olympic Association, dated 05.11.2018, an Arbitral Award

dated 08.04.2019 mandates that the Executive Committee of the TOA

must appoint a retired High Court Judge or other specified individuals

as Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer for conducting

elections. Petitioner claims that a voters' list was prepared and

elections for TOA were conducted, with results declared in Form-15 on

09.02.2020 for the term 2020-2024. The 3rd respondent was not

elected as per Bye-law No. 18 (i), rendering his role as Officiating

President void ab initio and illegal.

During the term of TOA (2020-2024), the 3rd respondent, in

collusion with the 4th respondent, allegedly committed serious

illegalities and irregularities. They purportedly made independent

policy decisions without approval from the Executive Committee or

General Body, failing to issue notices, hold discussions, or

communicate meeting minutes. Respondents 3 and 4 allegedly

removed office bearers from affiliated Associations without due

process, appointing their preferred candidates instead. He further

claims that Respondents 3 and 4 misappropriated funds without

proper documentation, failing to present annual income and

expenditure statements to the Association members. Additionally, they

reportedly collected fees for the conference hall and room bookings,

which were not accounted for and were utilized without proper record-

keeping. Meetings were allegedly conducted by them without proper

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

notice, agenda, resolutions, or documentation of minutes, which were

not circulated to other office bearers or Executive Committee members.

The action of Respondents 3 and 4 demonstrated favouritism towards

specific Associations, undermining the interests and welfare of the

TOA.

Petitioner contends that at the end of the term of office,

Respondents 3 and 4 were obligated to conduct an Executive

Committee Meeting to decide the date for Annual General Body

Meeting, addressing all activities, audit of accounts and elections.

However, contrary to the Bye-laws, after their term expired, on

08.02.2024, they colluded to issue notices dated 20.02.2024 and

27.03.2024 to conduct an Executive Meeting on 29.02.2024 and a

Special General Body Meeting on 13.04.2024, proposing amendments

to the existing bye-laws. On 22.02.2024 and 12.04.2024, petitioner

and other Associations objected to these meetings stating that

Respondents had become functus officio and lacked the authority to

convene meetings or amend bye-laws. Additionally, on 03.03.2024, Sri

Maheshwar, Ex-Treasurer filed a complaint against Respondents 3 and

4 for embezzlement of Association funds, based on which, Inspector of

Police, PS Saifabad, Hyderabad registered FIR No. 88 of 2024 for

offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and investigation is nearing

completion.

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

On 15.04.2024, the 3rd respondent and other office bearers

submitted representations to the Registration Office, confirming that

their term expired on 08.02.2024; petitioner alleges that proposed

meetings and amendments were intended for wrongful gain and to

deprive existing affiliated State Associations of their voting rights.

Petitioner and other Associations also requested their bankers not to

process transactions made by Respondents 3 and 4; despite these

objections, they proceeded to conduct Special General Body Meeting on

13.04.2024 without the necessary quorum, proposing amendments

without an agenda or proper discussion. In response to these actions,

the 3rd respondent and two others filed Writ Petition No. 12291 of 2024

before this Court, wherein notice was issued and it was posted to

03.06.2024.

On 09.05.2024, Respondents 3 and 4 called for another

Executive Committee Meeting on 17.05.2024 to address several agenda

items, including confirming minutes from 29.02.2024 meeting and

finalizing voter eligibility for upcoming elections. This meeting was also

questioned in Writ Petition No. 13382 of 2024, wherein interim orders

were issued on 16.05.2024 indicating that any decision would be

subject to outcome of the pending Writ Petitions. Despite the ongoing

legal proceedings, on 18.05.2024, Respondents 3 and 4 issued a notice

to conduct Annual General Body Meeting and elections for the 2nd

respondent - TOA on 09.06.2024 at L.V.R. Olympic Bhavan, L.B.

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

Stadium, Hyderabad. They included conditions for participating in the

elections although the required annexures were missing or contrary to

the bye-laws. Petitioner asserts that National Sports Development

Code, 2011 applies to TOA; on 31.01.2020, Sports Authority of

Telangana State instructed all Presidents/General Secretaries of

Telangana State Sports Associations to implement this Sports Code.

The notice issued on 18.05.2024 calling for an Annual General Body

meeting to conduct elections and imposing unauthorized conditions to

prevent lawful Associations from voting, is deemed arbitrary and

illegal. Notices dated 09.05.2024 and 18.05.2024 are considered

without jurisdiction since the term of office for the Association expired

on 08.02.2024. These notices were purportedly issued to ratify illegal

actions taken by Respondents 3 and 4 during their tenure.

Furthermore, no agenda for the proposed amendments to the Byelaws

was circulated prior to the Special General Body Meeting held on

13.04.2024, and the minutes from earlier meetings were not

communicated to all Executive Committee Members. The meeting had

no quorum, attended largely by individuals without voting rights. Sri

Shiva Shankar, Ex-Joint Secretary, faced obstruction and intimidation

when attempting to raise concerns during the meeting, which

concluded without discussion or resolution.

It is stated, the Bye-laws stipulate that General Body Meeting

must appoint an Auditor not a Special General Body Meeting as per

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

Bylaw No. 10 (3) (d). The Executive Committee, as per Bye-law No. 17

(viii), lacks the authority to appoint an Auditor. Additionally, the

agenda for the notice dated 09.05.2024 failed to address the

preparation of voters' list. Petitioner highlights that Respondents 3 and

4 conducted meetings illegally without proper notice, often attended by

the unauthorized individuals. On 18.05.2024, objections were

submitted by Sri Shiva Shankar regarding these unauthorized

meetings.

According to petitioner, bye-laws do not empower Respondents 3

and 4 to issue affidavits in their prescribed form, disregarding

submitted objections. The Executive Committee's functions under Bye-

law No. 15 (b) are limited to four years and they cannot exercise

powers post-term as outlined in Bye-law No. 21. The 4th respondent's

authority to mandate affidavits from affiliated State Associations under

Bye-law No. 21 (ii) is contested, as proposed amendments remain

unknown to the Petitioner.

The National Sports Development Code, 2011 requires

implementation by the TOA as communicated through the letter dated

31.01.2020. According to G.O. Ms. No. 4, dated 06.02.2016, all Sports

Associations in Telangana must adhere to these guidelines, which

stipulate that office holders must vacate their posts upon reaching 70

years of age. The 4th respondent, having served for four terms and

exceeding this age limit, has not relinquished the role of Secretary

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

despite the directive from the Sports Authority, thereby holding office

unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of the National Sports

Development Code, 2011 and G.O. Ms. No. 4. Petitioner and other

affiliated Associations submitted objections on 21.05.2024 against the

notice to conduct Annual General Body Meeting and elections for the

TOA, claiming the term of office expired on 08.02.2024. After these

objections, the 4th respondent allegedly suppressed information and

requested the 5th respondent to serve as Returning Officer for the

elections, without appointing an Assistant Returning Officer.

According to Bylaw No. 21(1), the Executive Committee is responsible

for deciding the election schedule, while the Returning Officer lacks

such authority. The General Secretary, under Bye-law No. 16(c), is

tasked with notifying eligible members, which should include election

schedule, nomination forms and address for submissions. However,

the 5th Respondent issued an undated Election Notification along with

Form No. III on 23.05.2024, received via e-mail from the 4th

respondent. The affidavit from the 4th Respondent, presented as Form-

II, was deemed unauthorized. The Election Schedule did not allow

Associations excluded from the voters' list to contest or request

inclusion. It also failed to specify the authority responsible for

finalizing the voters' list or addressing objections. The notice dated

18.05.2024 lacked any reference to an Executive Committee resolution

and indicated that the 5th respondent was not officially appointed as

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

Returning Officer prior to that notice. Therefore, the appointment was

considered null and void.

Petitioner contends that issuance of undated Election Schedule

was allegedly a manoeuvre by the 4th respondent and his associates to

manipulate TOA's affairs, aiming to amend bylaws to favor certain

candidates. The 5th respondent was reported to issue unauthorized

affidavits requiring acceptance of illegal actions as conditions for

inclusion in the voters' list. Additionally, the 4th respondent reportedly

failed to communicate with several affiliated State Associations,

anticipating they would vote against his nominees. Many of these

Associations, in good standing, submitted objections regarding their

exclusion from the voters' list but received no responses. On

24.05.2024, Sri S.R. Prem Raj and others sent a legal notice to

Respondents 3 and 4, urging them not to call for Annual General Body

Meeting or elections after the term had expired. On 25.05.2024, they

requested the 5th respondent to halt the election process until the

resolution of pending Writ Petitions No.12291 and 13382 of 2024.

However, the 5th respondent directed them to seek Court orders

instead of stopping the election process.

Despite these objections, on 25.05.2024, the 5th respondent

communicated an Electoral College signed jointly with the 4th

respondent. Upon review, petitioner found that his name was removed

from Electoral College, citing his position as Secretary of Telangana

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

Football Association as the reason, despite no prohibitions under the

National Sports Code or the Association's bye-laws. Petitioner, seeking

to contest for General Secretary of TOA, opposed election process due

to various alleged illegalities, including lack of a validly-conducted

General Body Meeting and an approved voters' list.

4. While making the above submissions, learned counsel for

petitioner relied upon the following decisions buttressing his

submissions:

Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab 1, State of Assam vs. Kripanath Sarma 2, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs. Manju Jain 3 , Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA vs. Bharat Electronics Limited 4 .

5. The 2nd respondent - TOA raised a preliminary objection

regarding maintainability of Writ Petition and sought permission to file

a preliminary counter affidavit with liberty to submit a detailed counter

affidavit addressing various allegations, which they assert are baseless

and lack factual and legal support. According to Section 23 of

Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, disputes between members

and Society should be resolved in an appropriate District Court or

through the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Additionally, Bye-

1962 SCC Online SC11

1966 SCC Online SC 71

2010 SCC Online SC 916

2012 SCC Online SC 421

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

law No. 33 of TOA provides for arbitration, which is referenced for

clarity as under:

"33) In the event of any dispute arising between the Association and/or its members and/or between sports persons, officials, units and/or its members and/or between members who are within the purview of this Association on any matter whatsoever, the same shall be settled by arbitration only, under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996).

The decision of the Arbitration Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties and no member or unit of any member or other persons who are under the purview of the Association shall approach any Court of Law without referring a dispute for arbitration"

It is stated, petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly. Writ

Petitioner's requests include issuing notices for the Executive

Committee Meeting, decisions made therein, appointment of Returning

Officer and Assistant Returning Officer, non-inclusion in electoral

college and a declaration that the appointment of Retired Judge

Justice Praveen Kumar to conduct elections as illegal, null, and void.

The 2nd respondent contended that such prayers cannot be adjudicated

by this Court under Article 226. It is asserted that petitioner

Association is not an affiliated body to TOA and only affiliated

Associations can participate in the elections, therefore, petitioner lacks

locus standi to file Writ Petition, rendering it liable for dismissal.

Additionally, Telangana Gymnastic Association is an affiliated

Association recognized by TOA and petitioner is attempting to assert

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

itself as the said Association to disrupt the election process, while any

disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 should be

resolved by the competent District Court under Section 23 of the

Societies Registration Act.

In this Writ Petition, petitioner is identified as an individual, not

an affiliated body of TOA, thus lacking locus to file the Petition.

Telangana Football Association, a member of TOA, has right to

challenge actions of respondents. Petitioner was excluded from the

electoral college as he completed two terms of four years each as

Secretary of Telangana Football Association. The bye-law strictly

prohibits any Secretary or Treasurer who held office for two

consecutive terms from being re-elected for the subsequent term.

"Secretary & Treasurer can hold office for two consecutive terms (with OR without break) after which a cooling off of four years is required before re-election."

As per the Rules formulated by NSDCI, petitioner is not eligible

for re-election for the post of Secretary as he held the office of

Secretary, TS Football Association for two consecutive terms.

Admittedly, implementation of National Sports Code of India, 2011 to

National Sports Federation, Indian Olympic Association and State

Olympic Association is mandatory as held by the Delhi High Court and

petitioner is also aware of the same. Therefore sought for dismissal of

the present Writ Petition.

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

6. While making the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel

relied upon the following decisions:

PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank 5 Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. MB Power 6 Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri 7. All India SC and ST Railway Employees Association Zonal Office at Secunderabad v. E. Venkateshwarlu 8 Gita Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income Tax 9. Gundarpu Kiran Kumar v. State of Telangana 10.

7. Petitioner had come up with reply stating that term of office of

TOA, as per bye-law No. 15, expired on 08.02.2024, thus, the 4th

respondent is no longer the General Secretary. The bye-law does not

allow for continued office until the next election and without

authorization, the 4th respondent's claim to be General Secretary is

invalid. The 4th respondent, aged 72, also ceased to hold office upon

reaching 70 years as per letter dated 31.01.2024, rendering him

incompetent to sign or depose on behalf of TOA. Petitioner serves as

General Secretary of Telangana Football Association, an affiliated unit

of TOA; previously, he was included in the electoral college

representing Telangana Football Association. There are no bye-laws

prohibiting re-election for those who have served two consecutive

terms. The claim that such a prohibition exists is false; the NSDCI

2024 SCC Online SC 528

2024 SCC Online SC 26

1964 SCC Online SC 13

2003 SCC Online AP 97

MANU/SC/0210/1969;

2023(5) ALD 221 (TS)

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

2011 guidelines apply to National Federations, not to TOA. It is noted

that the 4th respondent did not conduct Annual General Meeting in the

last quarter of 2023 to submit required financial statements and

budget proposals as per bye-law No. 10(2). The term for elected office

bearers is four years, starting from the last election on 09.02.2020,

concluding on 08.02.2024. The 2001 Act does not mandate that an

Executive Committee continue after their term has expired. Therefore,

the 4th respondent became functus officio post 08.02.2024 and cannot

perform duties of General Secretary after that date.

8. It is to be noted that connected writ petitions, namely, WP

Nos.12291, 13382, 13556, 13557 and 13559 of 2024 have also been

filed either in individual capacity or in the capacity of affiliated

Association of the Telangana Olympic Association. The common

grievance in all these writ petitions is that the present incumbent

Executive Committee's term is from 2020-2024 and its term expired on

08.02.2024, and the Committee is illegally continuing in office and

conducting Executive Committee Meetings and Special General Body

Meetings, without the necessary strength of Members. It is also alleged

that the Committee is removing Members without following due

procedure contemplated in the By-Laws, and further the Committee

has misappropriated the funds of the Association and no Statements of

Accounts were audited, no expenditure details were placed in the

meetings for ratification. It is to be noted that cases were registered

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

against certain Office Bearers of the Telangana Olympic Association

under various offences, as brought out in the preceding paragraphs.

Further, the Election Notification issued by the Returning Officer, Hon'

ble Mr. Justice C. Praveen Kumar (retd) has also been challenged

raising the ground that the certain individuals were unduly removed

from the list of voters.

9. It is to be noted that challenge in all these writ petitions is with

regard to the very continuation and functioning of the present

incumbent Executive Committee beyond its term (which ended on

08.02.2024), and the alleged illegalities, including termination of

Members and misappropriation of funds, committed by the Executive

Committee. The predominant ground taken in these writ petitions is

with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. In view of the

overarching nature of grievance in all the writ petitions, attention of

the Court was drawn to various judgments/case-law on various facets

of the grievance right from maintainability of the writ petitions to the

Election Notification, and arguments were advanced both in common

and also touching the specifics of the allegations in individual writ

petitions as they occurred, this Court is inclined to discuss the

grievance in totality in all the writ petitions in view of inter-

connectedness of the grievance in the writ petitions.

10. As stated in preceding paragraphs, keeping in view the challenge

laid to the very continuation of the Executive Committee, which forms

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

the basis for all the actions taken by it, this Court deems it expedient

to discuss the case law in all these writ petitions as they are relied on

by the learned counsel, and as they are commonly applicable.

11. Learned Senior Counsel relied on Lakshmi Charan Sen v. AKM

Hassan Uzzaman 11, Union of India v. International Trading

Company 12, GhulamQadir v. Special Tribunal 13, PHR Invent

Educational Society v. UCO Bank 14, State of Orissa v. ram Chandra

Dev 15, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. MB Power 16, All

India SC and ST Railway Employees Association v. E.

Venkateshwarlu 17, Gita Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income

Tax 18.

12. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the

material on record, including the judgments relied on by the learned

counsel for the parties, it is to be noted that the 2nd respondent-

Association is an entity registered under the Societies Registration Act,

2001. Admittedly, the present incumbent Executive Committee was

elected for the term 2020-2024 and its term expired on 08.02.2024. It

is vehemently contended that the present Executive Committee

members of 2nd respondent-Association have resorted to serious

(1985) 4 SCC 689

(2003) 5 SCC 437

(2002) 1 SCC 33

2024 SCcOnLine SC 528

AIR 1964 SC 685

2024 SCC OnLine 26

2003 SCC OnLine AP 97

MANU/SC/0210/1969

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

financial irregularities, non-conforming to the procedures stipulated in

the by-laws for conducting annual general meetings, auditing of

financial statements, etc. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that

the 2nd respondent-Association is a Society under the Societies

Registration Act, 2001, and it is not a body corporate, or an entity,

established under the Central or State Act. It is therefore relevant to

examine if a writ is maintainable in the given facts of the case.

13. I have perused the judgments relied on by the learned counsel

for both the parties, both for and against, on the aspect of

maintainability of the writ petition.

14. It is now settled that for a writ petition to be maintainable under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the entity against which the

grievance is made out should either be State/Government or an

Instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of

India. In this context, it would be pertinent to deal with what

constitutes an Instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

15. To elucidate on that aspect, it would be relevant to note that in

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of

India 19, the Hon' ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the

issue as to "what constitutes an Instrumentality of the State under

1979 (3) SCC 489

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

Article 12 of the Constitution of India". Ramana Dayaram Shetty

(supra) was a case where the petitioner therein had challenged a

tender notification issued by the Airport Authority as arbitrary and

illegal by reason of not conforming to the tender standards. The Hon'

ble Supreme Court, while referring to various precedent judgments,

like, Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal 20, broadly laid

out a certain non-exclusive set of parameters which an entity has to

satisfy so as to qualify being called an Instrumentality of the State

under Article 12. The Hon' ble Supreme Court, while observing that

Corporations established by statute or incorporated under law are

an instrumentality or agency of the Government, if they satisfied

certain tests, like (i) the source of the share capital, (ii) The extent

of State control over the Corporation, and whether it is "deep and

pervasive", (iii) whether the Corporation has a monopoly status,

(iv) whether the functions of the Corporation are of public

importance and closely related to governmental functions; and(v)

Whether, what belonged to a Government Department formerly

was transferred to the Corporation.

16. The Hon' ble Supreme Court further observed that the list is

not exhaustive and by its very nature, it cannot be, because, with

increasing assumption of new tasks, growing complexities of

management and administration and the necessity of continuing

AIR 1967 SC 1857

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

adjustment in relations between the Corporation and Government,

calling for flexibility, adaptability and innovative skills, it is not

possible to make an exhaustive enumeration of the tests which

would invariably and in all cases provide an unfailing answer to

the question whether a Corporation is a governmental

instrumentality or agency. The Hon' ble Supreme Court further

observed that no one single factor will yield a satisfactory answer

to the question and the Court will have to consider the cumulative

effect of these factors, in arriving at its decision on the basis of

facts and circumstances of each case.

17. The Hon' ble Supreme Court further held in Ramana Dayaram

Shetty (supra) while discussing the status of Airports Authority (1st

respondent therein) as follows:

"It will be seen from these provisions that there are certain features of the 1st respondent which are eloquent and throw considerable light on the true nature of the 1st respondent. In the first place, the chairman and members of the 1st respondent are all persons nominated by the Central Government and the Central Government has also the power to terminate their appointment as also to remove them in certain specified circumstances. The Central Government is also vested with the power to take away the management of any airport from the 1st respondent and to entrust it to any other person or authority and for certain special reasons, the Central Government can also supersede the 1st respondent. The Central Government has also power to give directions in writing, from time to time on questions of policy and these directions are declared binding on the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has no share capital but the capital needed by it for carrying out its functions is provided wholly by the Central Government. The balance of the not profit made by the 1st respondent after making provision for various charges, such as reserve funds, had and

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

doubtful debts depreciation in assets etc. does not remain with the 1st respondent and is required to be paid over lo the Central Government. The 1st respondent is also required to submit to the Central Government for its approval a statement of the programme of its activities as also the financial estimate and it must follow as a necessary corollary that the 1st respondent can carry out only such activities and incur only such expenditure as is approved by the Central Government. The audited accounts of the 1st respondent together with the audit report have to be forwarded to the Central Government and they are required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. So far as the functions of the 1st respondent are concerned, the entire department of the Central Government relating to the administration of airports and air navigation services together with its properties and assets, debts, obligations and liabilities, contracts, causes of action and pending litigation is transferred to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is charged with carrying out the same functions which were, until the appointed date, being carried out by the Central Government. The employees and officers on the 1st respondent are also deemed to be public servants and the 1st respondent as well as its members, officers and employees are given immunity for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of the Act or any rule or regulation made under it. The 1st respondent is also given power to frame Regulations and to provide that contravention of certain specified Regulations shall entail penal consequence. These provisions clearly show that every test discussed above is satisfied in the case of the 1st respondent and they leave no doubt that the 1st respondent is an instrumentality or agency of the Central Government and falls within the definition of 'State' both on the 'narrow view taken by the majority in Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram 21 as also on the broader view of Mathew, J., adopted by us."

18. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court

in Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), it is to be noted in the instant

case that the President and Members of the 2nd respondent-Association

are neither nominated or appointed by the State Government, nor the

2nd respondent-Association is required under any Act passed by the

1975 (1) SCC 421

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

Parliament or State Legislature to submit its programme of activities

and financial estimates, nor that the 2ndrespondent can carry out only

such activities and incur only such expenditure as is approved by the

State Government. Further, the 2nd respondent's audited accounts

together with the audit report are not required to be laid before the

Houses of State Legislature. Therefore, the 2nd respondent does not

qualify to be an Instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

19. Further, the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering

Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar 22, held as follows:

"The question which arose in this case was whether a reference of an industrial dispute between the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') and the Union made by the State of Bihar under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was valid. The argument of the Union was that the industry in question was "carried on under the authority of the Central Government" and the reference could, therefore, be made only by the Central Government. The Court held that the words "under the authority" mean "pursuant to the authority, such as where an agent or a servant acts under of pursuant to the authority of his principal or master" and on this view, the Court addressed itself to the question whether the Corporation could be said to be carrying on business pursuant to the authority of the Central Government. The answer to this question was obviously 'no' because the Corporation was carrying on business in virtue of the authority derived from its memorandum and articles of association and not by reason of any authority granted by the Central Government. The Corporation, in carrying on business, was acting on its own behalf and not on behalf of the Central Government and it was therefore not a servant or agent of the Central Government in the sense that its actions would bind the Central Government."

AIR 1970 SC 82

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

20. Though it is contended that the 2nd respondent-Association

receives funds from Indian Olympic Association and State Government

and others, it is to be noted that neither the powers to conduct the day

to day business and affairs of the 2nd respondent-Association flow from

any "authority" bestowed by the Government so as to imply that the

Government is executing its works through 2nd respondent as an

instrumentality of the State, nor the 2nd respondent is carrying out the

affairs/activities in the capacity of an Agent to the Government, which

ultimately bind and make the Government answerable to the actions of

the 2nd respondent-Association.

21. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be said the 2nd respondent-

Association is an Instrumentality of the State so as to maintain a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The 2nd

respondent-Association is an entity registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 2001. In case of dispute amongst the Members of the

Association or on any matter relating to the affairs of the Association,

the dispute resolution mechanism provided under Section 23 of the

Act, 2001 is appropriate recourse to the petitioners.

22. The dispute in the present case is essentially between members

with regard to the election process, and therefore the dispute squarely

falls within the ambit of Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act,

2001. For the sake of reference, Section 23 of the Societies Registration

Act, 2001 is extracted hereunder:

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

"23. Dispute regarding management - In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996), or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit."

23. To elucidate further as to whether the election dispute comes

under the phrase "any matter relating to the affairs of the society", it

would be relevant to refer to C. Vasudeva Rao v. State of A.P. 23,

wherein the Hon' ble High Court of A.P. held as follows:

"The expression "any dispute" is wide enough to cover even the disputes relating to election of the members of the committee. So, any dispute arising among the committee, albeit, it be a dispute pertaining to the election of office bearers of the Executive Committee, squarely falls within the expression "any matter relating to the affairs of the society" as has been used in Section 23 of the 2001 Act. The expressions "any dispute" and "any matter relating to the affairs of the society" are too wide enough even to cover the election dispute relating to the election of the office bearers of the Executive Committee or any matter relating to the affairs of the society. Even an election of office bearers of the Executive Committee relates to the affairs of the Society."

24. The Hon' ble Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Nirmala Kale

v. The Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches 24, upheld that a

writ petition against the Society is not maintainable as it does not fall

under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and does not perform

public duty.

Writ Petition No.8696 of 2022 (High Court of A.P.)

Writ Appeal No.1551 of 2013 (Telangana High Court)

wp_13549_2024 NBK, J

25. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving open to the

petitioners to avail the remedies available to them under law. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

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