[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
M. Ram Charan @ Ram Charan Markatta vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.799 of 2026
25.03.2026
Between:
M.Ram Charan
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rept. by its Special Chief Secretary, Sports,
Telangana State, Hyderabad & 4 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction
declaring the action of the respondents in imposing a two-year ban
upon the petitioner vide communication dated 29.12.2025 as illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently to set aside the same
and permit the petitioner to participate in cricketing activities, and to
pass such other orders as this Court deems fit and proper.
2. Heard Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Sports appearing
for respondent No.1, Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri S.Abhaya Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is an upcoming cricketer who has been actively
participating in tournaments conducted under the aegis of
respondent authorities and has demonstrated commendable
performance.
4. It is contended that the impugned action imposing a two-
year ban is arbitrary and was taken on the alleged discrepancy
relating to the petitioner's date of birth.
5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner possesses valid
birth certificates and supporting records establishing his date of
birth and had already furnished clarifications along with
supporting documents to the respondents explaining the
discrepancies.
6. The discrepancy primarily arose due to inconsistent entries
in certain records, particularly Aadhaar data, which according to
the petitioner cannot be treated as conclusive proof of date of
birth.
7. The petitioner relies upon judicial precedent holding that
Aadhaar card entries are not determinative proof of date of birth
and submits that reliance placed upon such entry is misplaced.
8. It is further submitted that pursuant to interim orders
passed earlier by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to
participate in tournaments, which demonstrates that the issue
requires proper examination rather than punitive action.
9. The petitioner's parents have also sworn an affidavit
explaining the circumstances under which multiple birth
certificates came into existence and stating that steps have been
initiated before competent authorities for correction/cancellation
of erroneous entries.
10. According to the petitioner, the ban imposed without proper
adjudication and without considering his explanation violates
principles of natural justice and adversely affects his sporting
career. Therefore, petitioner prays to allow this writ petition.
11. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent
Nos. 3 to 5 through the Chief Executive Officer of the Hyderabad
Cricket Association opposing the writ petition contending that the
challenge in this writ petition is to the two-year ban imposed
based on information relating to discrepancies in the petitioner's
date of birth records furnished to the association.
12. The petitioner himself relied upon multiple date of birth
documents which contain patent inconsistencies, namely:
Aadhaar Card reflecting one date of birth, GHMC Birth Certificate
showing another date, Narsingi Municipality Birth Certificate
recording a different date, and Tahsildar certificate reflecting yet
another entry.
13. According to the respondents, the petitioner suppressed
material documents and failed to place all relevant records before
this Court, thereby disentitling him to discretionary relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment in
State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of
India is misconceived, as the said judgment merely holds that
Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of date of birth and does not
validate inconsistent birth certificates.
15. The respondents further submit that the petitioner's
parents themselves filed an affidavit admitting discrepancies in
the date of birth records and stating that corrective steps were
being taken, thereby confirming unresolved inconsistencies.
Unless such discrepancies are resolved before competent
authorities, the respondents contend that the action imposing the
ban cannot be faulted.
16. The respondents deny all allegations made in the writ
affidavit except those specifically admitted and assert that the
petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
17. This Court has considered the submissions made by
learned counsel on either side and perused the material placed
on record, including the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner
explaining the discrepancies relating to date of birth records.
18. The dispute between the parties primarily concerns the
correctness of the petitioner's date of birth and the consequences
flowing from alleged inconsistencies in official records. The
petitioner asserts that the discrepancies arose due to inadvertent
errors and are presently subject to rectification before competent
authorities, whereas the respondents justify the impugned action
on account of unresolved inconsistencies.
19. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival
claims, this Court is of the view that the issue requires
examination by the competent authority in accordance with the
applicable rules and governing regulations after duly considering
the petitioner's explanation and supporting material.
20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing
respondent No.2 to examine the case of the petitioner, including
the affidavit filed by him and all supporting documents, strictly in
accordance with law and applicable regulations. The respondents
shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and
consider his explanations regarding the discrepancies in date of
birth records.
21. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass appropriate reasoned
orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of eight (4) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
22. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claims of either party and all issues
are left open for consideration by the competent authority.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Dated:25.03.2026
AQS
