Telangana High Court

Kawaljeet Singh, vs Prl.Secy., Finance Hyd., And 3 Others, on 29 July, 2025

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                        AT HYDERABAD
          FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
                 TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

                            :PRESENT:
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

                         WP .NO: 534 of 2014
                                   &
                      WPMP Nos. 595 and 2233 of 2014

Between:
Kawaljeet Singh, S/o. Late Kripal Singh,
Occ: Director of Hyderabad Cricket Academy of Excellence constituted by
Hyderabad Cricket Association, R/o. H.No. 6, Sai Ansh Arcade, Trimulghery,
Secunderabad.
                                                            ..... Petitioner/
                                            Petitioner in WPMP Nos.595 &
                                                             2233 of 2014

                                      AND

1     The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
    (Finance), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.
2     The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
    (Youth Services & Sports), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
3     Hyderabad Cricket Association, Rep. by its Secretary, M.V. Sridhar,
    Head Office at Gymkhana Grounds, Opp: Lamba Theatre,
    Secunderabad. Administrative office at: R.G.I.S. Stadium, Uppal,
    Hyderabad.
4     Mr. G. Vinod , S/o. G. Venkatswamy, President, Hyderabad Cricket
    Association, Occ: Visakha Industries Ltd. R/o. C/o. Hyderabad Cricket
    Association, Head Office at Gymkhana Grounds, Opp: Lamba Theatre,
    Secunderabad. Administrative office at: R.G.I.S. Stadium, Uppal,
    Hyderabad.
                                                           .....Respondents/
                                                       Respondents in - do -

     Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one more particularly in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned letter vide No.HCA/GEN
dated 02-01-2014 and HCA/GEN dated 26-12-2013 issued by Respondent
No.4 without any show-cause notice, affording an opportunity of hearing,
without any basis of resolution of Executive Committee or the General body,
without power and jurisdiction, violative of the Principles of Natural justice, is
illegal, arbitrary, capricious, malafide and Non-est, in the interest of justice.

WPMP.NO: 595 of 2014

     Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in the W.P., the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the impugned letter vide No.HCA/GEN dated 02-01-2014 & HCA/
GEN dated 26-12-2013 thereby restraining the Respondent No.4 or anybody
acting for or on behalf of Respondent No.3 and 4 in anyway interfering or
 disturbing the conduct of activities of Hyderabad Cricket Academy of
excellence in the interest of justice, pending disposal of WP No.534 of 2014
on the file of the High Court.




WPMP.NO: 2233 of 2014

     Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in the W.P., the High Court may be pleased to
receive the documents as additional material papers in the interest of justice,
pending disposal of WP No.534 of 2014 on the file of the High Court.


Counsel for the Petitioner           : Sri Mir Masood Khan
Counsel for the Respondent No.1      : G.P. for Finance
Counsel for the Respondent No.2      : G.P. for Youth Services
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Sri K. Suryanarayana

The Court made the following

ORDER:

WP.No.534 of 2014:

The writ petition is filed questioning the order of the suspension of the petitioner dated 02.01.2014 passed by the President of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) - third respondent herein and the same is sought to be declared as without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and non-est.

2. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 09.01.2014, learned counsel for the respondents had taken notice on behalf of R3 and R4 and had sought time to file counter. Accordingly, the matter was coming up for counter. Subsequently, counter, reply and additional pleadings are also filed on merits as well as on maintainability of the writ petition.

3. I have, accordingly, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. ZEE TELE FILMS LTD. V. [1] [2] UNION OF INDIA ; BCCI v. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB as well as decision of this Court in AMBATI RAMAIH v. GOVERNMENT OF

ANDHRA PRADESH to contend that the maintainability of the writ petition has already been upheld by the Supreme Court and this court and as such, the said issue is no more res integra.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relies upon judgment of the Supreme Court in PRAGA TOOLS CORPORATION v.

SHRI C.A. IMANUAL and judgments of this Court in NIRMALA KALE

v. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, HYDERABAD ; C. BABU RAO v. DISTRICT

REGSITRAR, REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES and SYED FAZLUR

RAHEEM v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PARDESH as well as unreported judgments of this Court in SUTHAN CRICKET CLUB v. COMMISSIOENR & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION (WP.No.7426 of 2010 dated 16.04.2010 and MRS. NIRMALA KALE v. SOCIETY OF TRUSTEES OF INDIGENOUS CHURCHES IN INDIA (WP.No.16764 of 2013 dated 14.06.2013) as well as unreported judgment of the Chattisgarh High Court in WP.No.2754 of 2012 dated 03.08.2012. The aforesaid decisions are relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that on the similar facts and circumstances relating to an association, it was already held that it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not lie.

6. Since the impugned order of suspension is under strong contest by both sides on maintainability as well as on merits, the writ petition deserves a detailed hearing where the issue of maintainability can also be gone into. The said question is kept open at the time of final disposal. Hence,

Rule Nisi. Call for records.

Notice returnable in four (4) weeks.

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are already represented by Mr. K. Suryanarayana. Let notice go to other respondents and to enable them to file counter four (4) weeks time is granted.

List the writ petition after six (6) weeks.

WPMP.No.2233 of 2014:

7. This application, filed by the petitioner to receive the documents as additional material papers, is, however, ordered, as the said documents are already considered during the hearing.

WPMP.No.595 of 2014:

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of suspension is liable to be suspended on various grounds urged by him. Hence, this application was heard at length and is being disposed of by this order.

9. Keeping in view the urgency mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have allowed both the learned counsel to make their submissions on the interlocutory application by assuming that the present writ petition is maintainable. Both the learned counsel have, accordingly, made their submissions to the extent of the interim relief sought for by the petitioner.

10. Petitioner is a cricketer of national and international cricket and keeping in view his cricketing credentials and expertise as coach, petitioner was appointed by the HCA as Director of Hyderabad Cricket Academy of Excellence, which is set up by HCA. According to the petitioner, the HCA carries on public functions and as such, is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of public duties enforceable by it. Petitioner states that by proceedings of the Secretary, HCA dated 23.07.2013, the petitioner was informed that he was appointed as Director of Hyderabad Cricket Academy of Excellence for the year 2013- 2014. Petitioner states that he has worked for the said academy by developing the ground, cricket playing wickets, discipline and security on ground and is conducting coaching, expert training etc.

11. On 26.12.2013, an incident appears to have occurred involving the petitioner and one Veerendra Yadav, when the later was allegedly, doing the training at the area adjacent to the main play area, when the petitioner had, allegedly, threatened, abused and manhandled the said Veerendra Yadav. Thereupon, the said Veerendra Yadav approached the Begumpet Police Station and lodged FIR No.485/2013 against the petitioner and also filed a complaint with the HCA on the same day and requested for action. The said complainant is said to be the President of Ranga Reddy District Cricket Association and affiliated unit of HCA. On receipt of the complaint from him, the President of HCA called for remarks from the petitioner, which was furnished by the petitioner on 30.12.2013. After considering the same, under the impugned order dated 02.01.2014, the President informed the petitioner that considering the issue and petitioner's responsibility as Director of Academy, he would be given an opportunity before the enquiry committee and in the meantime, the services of the petitioner were suspended with immediate effect. The said impugned order is questioned in the writ petition and it appears that later by further proceedings dated 15.01.2014, the President, HCA, has requested the Chairman, HCA Disciplinary Sub-Committee to conduct an enquiry in the aforesaid matter.

12. Petitioner questions the said impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that the President of HCA had no jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order and that the said order is contrary to the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations 2011 of HCA.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon Rule 3(iv) and (vi) of the Memorandum and Rules dealing with the powers of the Executive Committee and power of the President to contend that the President alone, in the absence of the procedure followed by the Executive Committee, has no power and consequently, the impugned order of suspension is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel also pointed out that the complainant is closely related to another test cricketer and only on account of the pressure exerted by him, the present proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel also contended that the President has passed the impugned order, which suffers from total non-application of mind, as the reply given by the petitioner on 30.12.2013 has not been appreciated and the impugned order is bereft of any reasons.

14. Counter affidavit to the writ petition was filed by the Secretary, HCA and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the allegations are made against the President; the counter affidavit filed by any other officer of HCA is liable to be ignored. Learned counsel also states that while the said complainant lodged an FIR against the petitioner, simultaneously, while filing complaint before the third respondent, the petitioner also gave reply to the said complaint and has also registered an FIR against the said complainant. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the subject matter of these proceedings is a complaint and a counter complaint, which cannot be adjudicated upon by the HCA and hence, the suspension of the petitioner is wholly unwarranted and for malafide and extraneous reasons.

15. Learned counsel for the third respondent - HCA submits that the order impugned is not passed merely on the basis of the complaint but the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain and his detailed reply dated 30.12.2013 was considered and only, thereafter, that the impugned order was issued on the President, being satisfied that the allegations and reply require a detailed consideration in an enquiry. A disciplinary committee of the association, which deals with the disciplinary matters, was, therefore, requested by the President to hold an enquiry. As such the learned counsel submits that the action of HCA is clearly transparent and fair and no malafides or arbitrariness can be attributed to the third respondent. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner's appointment as Director of the Academy is only in pursuance of the letter of the Secretary, HCA dated 23.07.2013, which states that HCA has appointed the petitioner as Director of the Academy for the year 2013-2014, effective from August 2013 and contractual obligations and other compensation details will follow. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is suspended from the position of Director of the Academy pending enquiry into the allegations and in view of that, submits that no interference is called for by this Court, as the third respondent - HCA intends to conduct enquiry as early as possible.

16. Though learned counsel for the petitioner had placed strong reliance upon the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of HCA, prima facie, in my view, the said Rules and Regulations relate to and regulate relations between the association and its members. For instance, the learned counsel has relied upon the powers of the executive committee under Rule 13, which deals with misconduct etc. In my view, however, those Rules relate to misconduct of a member of the association and the disciplinary action by the association against such member. In the present case, as is seen from the impugned order, the same does not deal with or anyway is concerned with respect to the relation between the association and its member. Petitioner, who is only holding the position of the Director of the Academy, set up by the HCA and the suspension relates to the capacity of the petitioner as Director of that Academy. Hence, in my view, the reliance on the memorandum, rules and regulations of HCA for the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the President is wholly misconceived.

17. Secondly, the petitioner has been appointed as Director, admittedly, by the third respondent. Obviously, the power of appointment includes the power of removal as well as suspension. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioner to contend that while he was appointed by HCA, the latter had no power to suspend him. In my view, therefore, prima facie, the issue of jurisdiction cannot be upheld in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner cannot be interdicted on the ground that the President of HCA, who has passed the said order, has no power.

18. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are issued on total non- application of mind also, in my view, prima facie, is not established inasmuch as the petitioner had given his reply with reference to the complaint. HCA, therefore, by itself could not have decided by looking at the complaint and the explanation of the petitioner and for that purpose, the impugned order states that enquiry is proposed to be conducted and pending that the petitioner was suspended. Subsequent proceedings issued by the President of HCA requesting the Chairman of the disciplinary committee to conduct enquiry into the matter, therefore, shows that the order of suspension of the petitioner from the position of the Director of the Academy is only in the nature of suspension pending enquiry. In my view, therefore, neither any want of jurisdiction nor malafides are established by the petitioner to satisfy this Court, prima facie, that the impugned order is required to be suspended.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the unreported judgment of this Court in WP.No.24762 of 2013 dated 23.08.2013. The aforesaid decision related to proceedings under the Wakf Act taken against the person described as an encroacher. In the context of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board, this Court observed that the said order of the Chief Executive Officer must disclose reasons underlying the satisfaction of the authority to come to the conclusion. In my view, the said decision is wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As stated above, the President of the Association found it justified to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry from the office of the Director of Academy held by him. At the stage of passing of order of suspension, therefore, it was not necessary for the authority to issue a reasoned order. The suspension pending enquiry is by itself based upon substantive satisfaction of the authority passing the order and cannot be construed as a punishment nor that order suffers from want of jurisdiction or malafides, hence, this Court would not interfere with the said order.

20. Keeping in view the expertise of the petitioner and his position as a Director of the Academy, it is but appropriate that the enquiry proceedings, contemplated by HCA against the petitioner, be completed as early as possible without further loss of time. Learned counsel appearing for HCA also expressed willingness to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. Hence, in the interest of the parties, HCA is directed to take appropriate steps and ensure completion of the enquiry, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the competent authority shall pass appropriate final order keeping in view the report of the enquiry within a period of two (2) weeks of the receipt of the report.

Subject to the above, WPMP is disposed of.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

2 The Principal Secretary (Youth Services & Sports), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 M.V. Sridhar, Secretary, Hyderabad Cricket Association, Head Office at Gymkhana Grounds, Opp: Lamba Theatre, Secunderabad. Administrative office at: R.G.I.S. Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad. (By Spl. Messenger) 4 Mr. G. Vinod , S/o. G. Venkatswamy, President, Hyderabad Cricket Association, Occ: Visakha Industries Ltd. R/o. C/o. Hyderabad Cricket Association, Head Office at Gymkhana Grounds, Opp: Lamba Theatre, Secunderabad. Administrative office at: R.G.I.S. Stadium, Uppal, Hyd. (Addressees 1, 2 & 4 BY RPAD) 5 One CC to Sri Mir Masood Khan, Advocate (OPUC) 6 Two CCs to the G.P. for Finance, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 7 Two CCs to the G.P. for Youth Services, High Court of A.P., Hyd. (OUT) 8 One spare copy.

nnr

HIGH COURT VVA,J

DATED: 14-2-2014

NOTE: List the WP after six weeks

ORDER

W.P.NO. 534 OF 2014 & WPMP Nos.595 and 2233 of 2014

DIRECTION HIGH COURT Nnr Date of Drafting : 17-2-2014

VVA,J

DATED: 14-2-2014

NOTE: List the WP after six weeks

ORDER

W.P.NO. 534 OF 2014 & WPMP Nos.595 and 2233 of 2014