AI Insights
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by the Andhra Pradesh Football Association and various district football associations against the Union of India, the Sports Authority of India, and other respondents, challenging the conduct of elections for the Andhra Pradesh Football Association (APFA). The petitions argued that the elections were conducted without proper voter lists and included non-members as voters, which was against the principles of natural justice and the bye-laws of the association. The court examined the election process, the voter list, and the objections raised by the petitioners. After a detailed examination, the court concluded that the elections were conducted fairly and in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802363 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
30-08-2024
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"% IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 13152^0F 2022, 8155, 10297 and 13268 of 2023 WRIT PETITION NO: 13152 OF 2022 Between: Andhra Pradesh Football Association, (Reg. No. 963/2019), Affiliated to All India Football Federation, Rep by its President Sri KosarajuGopala Krishna, S/o (late) Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Aged aboutSSyears, Reg Office-D.No. 14- 37-27, Pradesh. GokhaleRoad Krishnanagar, Visakhapatnam-530002, Andhra ...PETITIONER AND Union of India, Rep by its The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Room No.401, C-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 1 10 001, Sports Authority of India represented by its Authorized Signatory, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex (East Gate) Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003. The State Rep. by Principal Secretary, Department of Sports and youth Affairs, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. All India Football Federation(AIFF), , Rep by its President, Football House, Sector-19, Phase-1, Dwaraka, New Delhi-1 10075. Indian Olympic Association, Rep by its President, Olympic Bhawan, B- 29, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi, Delhi 110016. The Andhra Pradesh Olympic Association, (Reg. No. 175/1964) Rep. by its General Secretary, 101, A Block, Potiuri Residency, Ratna Nagar, Vijayawada - 520 007, KrishnaDist, AP. The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (S/ AP), Rep by its Vice Chairman (V.C) and Managing Director (M.D), I.G.M.O Stadium, Labbipet, Vijayawada-10. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Counsel for the Respondent No.7 ; SRI RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU SC FOR SAAP (^oljosel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 7 : M/s. OGIRALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SHYAM S. AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : WRIT PETITION NO: 8158 OF 2023 Between: Rayudu Nageswasra Rao, S/o. R. Pothu Raju, Aged. 33 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Door No. 24B-1-55, Flat No.307, Naina Deiux, Papa Saheb Street, Rama Chandra Rao Peta, Opp LIC Office-2, Eluru, West Godavari District - 534 002, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND Union of India, Rep by its the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Room No 401 C-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 1 10 001. Sports of Authority of India, Authorized Signatory Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex (East Gate), Lodhi Road, New Delhi 1 10 003. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. All India Football Federation (AIFF), Rep by its President, Foot Ball House Sector-19, Phase-1, Dwaraka, New Deihi-1 10 075. The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SAAP), Rep by its Vice- Chairman (V.C) and Managing Director (M.D), L-GO.l.C. Stadium, Labbipet, Vijayawada - 520 010, Andhra Pradesh. Indian Olympic Association, Rep. by its President, Olympic Bhawan, B- 29, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110 016. The Andhra Pradesh Olympic Association, (Reg.No.175/1964), Rep. by its General Secretary, 101, A Blocik, Potiuri Residency, Ratna Nagar, Vijayawada - 520 007, Andhra Pradesh. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ...RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO: 10297 OF 2023 Between: 1. Andhra Pradesh Football Association, Rep By its President Kosaraju Gopala Krishna, 14-37-27/ Gokhaie Road, Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam, 530 002. 2, Potnuru Sateesh Kumar, S/o. Sanakara Rao, Secretary of Vizianagarm District Football Association, 20-15-4, Stadium Colony, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh, 535002. 3. M. Naveen Kumar, S/o. M. Chandrayya, Secretary of Tirupati District Football Assoiciation, N.G.O Colony, Puttur, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh,517 583. 4. Nellore Lakshmikanth Prasad, S/o Vara Prasad, Secretary of Kurnool District Football Association, 21/405/32/2, RTC Colony, Adony, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, 518 301. 5. Nellore Deepak Raj, S/o.Victor, Secretary of Nellore District Football Association, 4-1-481/F, Near Rukmini Kalyana Mandapam, Konamma Thota, Kovru, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, 524137. 6. Shaik Moulali Pakalapadu, S/o. Syda, Joint Secretary of Palnadu District Football Association, H.No- 9-6-11, Near Srinivasa Mahal, Sattenapalli, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, 522 403. 7. K Chennakesavulu, S/o G.K Venkataramana, Secretary of Annamayya District Football Association, Siddhamma gari Palii, Pothapollu, Madanapalle, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. 8. Vinnakonda Suresh, S/o. Nagabhushan, President of Bapatla District Football Association, H.No 22, Vivekananda Colony, BavadevaNagar, Bapatla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh,522 101. 9. M Subbaraju, S/o M Venkata Ratnam, President of Krishna District Football Association, 32-12-16, Sri Kakatiya Towers, Gummadi Vari Street, Vijayawada, Venkateswarapuram, Krishna,Andhra Pradesh. 10.N Anand Kumar, Vice President of NTR District Football Association, D/o. 32-42-23, Ramalaya Street, Maruthi Nagar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, 520004. 11.M. Vinayaka Vamsi Krishna Kumar, Secretary of New West Godavari District Football Association, S/o. Ratnaji Rao, 1-178/1, Paidiparru, Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh, 534211. ...PETITIONERS AND 17.A Reddappa, S/o Krishnaiah, D.No.10-176, Maruthi Nagar, M R Palli Tirupati Urban, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh- 517 502 18.V Rajasekhar, S/o Chakradhararao, D.No. 1-22, Ambedkar Bomma Street, Korupalle, Pendyala, Nidadhavole, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 534 301 19. Rajani Kumar D, S/o Subramanyam, D.No.125-126, 100 feet ring road Srinivas Nagar-2, Vijayanagaram, Andhra Pradesh - 535 002 20.Seshagiri Rao Y, D.No.8-191/1, near Hari Villu apartment, Sai Nagar Gannavaram, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh - 521 101 21.N Venkata Kumar, S/o Surya Praka.sh Rao, D.No.1-11-1, Panchayath - Office Road, Kaluvacherla, Nidadhavole, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 534 302 22.Daniel Pradeep Murathoti, S/o Michael Vijaya Kumar 106 Classic Towers, Prakashnagar Yerramukkapali, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh - 516 004 23.A Chinnababu, S/o Appalanaidu, D.No. 7-42-144, Sangivalasa Bheemilipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 531 163 24.M Sudheer, D.No.11-94, Mariapuram, Kadapa, Andhrapradesh-5160 01 25.Potnuru Srinivasa Rao,S/o Ramulu, D.No.10-7/1-9/2, Lankapatnam Vijayanagaram, A.P- 535 002 26.Ch Sekhar, S/o Murali Babu, D.No. 1-54, Maddulagudem, Ch Pothepalli, Dwarakatirumala, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh-534 451 27.V Hemantha Kumar, S/o Ravi, D.No. 1-1506E 1, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Near Cotton Factory, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522 503 28.R Santhosh Kumar, S/o Venkata Murthy, Meenakshi Trident Towers, A 102, Gacchibowli, Rangareddy District, Telangana-500032 29.Edara Ramesh Babu, D.No. 2-82, Gangavaram, K Gangavaram Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh. -533 305 30.Mani Sankar, S/o Srinivas Rao, D.No. 6-33-1, Pulla, Bhimadole, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh-534 425 31.GSS Pavan Kumar, D.No. 1-56, Eluru R, Eluru, District,Andhra Pradesh-534 001. / respondents proposing to conduct the elections to the 1 petitioner association without including the names of the members of the petitioner association in the voters list and by including the names of outsiders who are not members of petitioner association and without considering the objections raised by the petitioners and the subsequent elections held on 05-05-2023 basing upon so called final voters list without rectifying the basic error as arbitrary illegal and without jurisdiction and ultra vires to the powers of the said respondents and contrary to the well settled principles of natural justice and to pass appropriate order including setting aside the elections held on 05-05-2023. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 ; SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI SAI SANJAY SURANENI Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI SHYAM S. AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU SC FOR SAAP Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI G. TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : M/s. OGIRALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.11 ; SRI K.M.R. BALA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9, 12, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 ; SRI P. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.18 : SRI ASHOK KUMAR CHILLAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.10, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 27 to 31 : 2023 for Office Bearers and Executive Members of the Association illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of the India and the byelaws of the Association vide Reg. No. 963/2019 dated 29.1 1.2019 and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice as lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to declare the results schedule to be held on 19.05.2023 with regard to the elections 2023 for Officer Bearers and Executive Members of, the Association/ Andhra Pradesh Football Association, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI G, R, SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y. V. ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent NolS ; GP FOR SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI SAI SANJAY SURANENI Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI SHYAM S. AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU SC FOR SAAP Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 8 : Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI G. TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : M/s. OGIRALA RAMES The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 13152 of 2022, 8158, 10297 and 13268 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.13152 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India “to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the alleged resolution vide Lr.No.03/Arl/2022, dated 11.04.2022, issued by the Respondent No. 8, as illegal, arbitrary, against Rules and Regulations as well as violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequentially direct Respondent No. 8 not to interfere in to affairs of Andhra Pradesh Football Association (APFA) and pass such other and further orders”. Writ Petition No,8158 of 2023 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India \"to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to include the names of the outsides, who are not members of the Andhra Pradesh Foot Ball Association as voters as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not No include the persons, who are not members of the Andhra Pradesh Foot Ball Association as voters and not to permit them to vote and pass such other and further orders\". Writ Petition No.10297 of 2023 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 2 \"to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particuiarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action of the 4'^ and 5\"’ respondents proposing to conduct the elections to the 1 association without including the names of the members petitioner of the names of petitioner association and without considering the objections raised by the petitioners arbitrary, illegal and without Jurisdiction and ultra vires to the powers of the said respondents and contrary to the well settled principles natural justice and pass such other and further orders\". petitioner association in the voters list and by including the outsides who are not members of 1 as of Writ Petition No. 13268 of 2023 is fiied under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India ‘to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notification dated 18.04.2023 for election 2023 for Office Bearers Members of the Association as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the byelaws Association vide Reg.No.963/2019, consequently set aside the same and pass such other and further orders\". and Executive of the dated 29.11.2019 and 2. Since the issue involved in the Writ Petitions is the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of them through this Common Order. 3. The precise case of the petitioner in W.P.No.13152 of 2022 is that he is the President of Andhra Pradesh Foot Ball Association (in short ‘APFA’) as per the Rules and Regulations issued by the respondent and he was elected as President on 3 22.05.2019 for four years. S'*\" respondent is no way concerned with the affairs of ‘APFA’, but he interfered in the affairs of the APFA’ and he called the General Body meeting on 11.04.2022. 4'^^ respondent has addressed a letter dated 27.04.2022 to 8 respondent alleging that 8'^ respondent has conducted elections in an unauthorized manner. Therefore, this Writ Petition came to th be filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in passing the resolution dated 11.04.2022. 4. Precise case of the petitioner in W.P.No.8158 of 2023 is that he is one of the promoters on the petitioner’s society having been the Joint Secretaries. Each and every individual is not eligible to become member of ‘APFA’ In other words individuals, who are the members of the Football Clubs in the particular district can become members being a nominee/ representee, the respective Foot Ball Clubs are eligible to become the member of the District Football Association. Similarly, representatives of the concerned District Foot Ball Association will be eligible to become members of the ’APFA’. All those eligible members can be admitted as members of the ’APFA’ on complying with other formalities and are entitled to participate in the Elections of the APFA. This Court passed interim order dated 14.02.2023 in 4 W.P.No.13152 of 2022 pending litigation between the parties, it is appropriate to conduct fresh election, including the issuance of notification, declaration of voters lists objections and finalization the supervision Yathirajulu with the assistance of Observers sent by the respondent and shall of the voters list and conducting elections under of the High Court Judge Dr. Justice G. be completed within six weeks as per the National Sports Development Code 2011. Accordingly Dr. Justice G. Yathirajulu issued notification in Deccan Chronicle on 23.03.2013. It is clear from the said notice that Dr. Justice G. Yathirajulu has obtained the voters list from the A.P Olympic Association which is not competent authority to maintain the voters list of APFA. The petitioner came to know that there are two groups in this State each claiming to the recognized Olympic Association in the State On enquiry it came to know that the SAPP did not recognize in any Olympic Association in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Only those persons, who became members of the APFA are entitled to persons, who were not members of the APFA are not eligible to be included in the voters list. As per the notification dated 23.03.2023, Dr. Justice G. Yathirajulu has invited all the persons interested to participate in included in the voters list. The other 5 the elections to sent the representations with supporting documents to prepare the final list of the eligible voters for the elections, but no such efforts were made to find out who are the members of the said Foot Ball Association. It is relevant to submit that even those persons who are otherwise eligible will not be entitled to be included in the voters list unless and until they become members of the said association. Therefore this writ petition came to be filed. 5. The precise case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10297 of 2023 is that pursuant to the publication, the petitioner has submitted detailed objections on 26.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 to Dr. G. Yathirajulu that the list of voters received by him is incorrect and further calling for the representations from the interested persons and inviting general public to partioipate in the said elections is not permissible and same is contrary to bye-laws of the said society. The APFA are only eligible members to be the voters and in turn have the right to participate in the elections of APFA, and further even those persons who are otherwise eligible will not be entitled to be included in the voters list unless and until they become members of the said association. But no response for the objections dated 26.03,2023 and 31.03.2023. While the 6 matter stood thus, a tentative final voters list was declared by Dr Justice G. Yathirajulu on 10,04.2023 and it is aiso mentioned that objections, if any shall reach the office on or before 15.04.2023 through email. It is unfortunate that the tentative list does include even one district association from the list APFA but all 13 district not submitted by the associations sent by Andhra Pradesh Oiympic Association (in short APOA') are oniy considered and it is not the appropriate authority to speak about the membership of APFA and a final list dated 17.04.2023 Pradesh Football was- released without making any necessary corrections to the final voters list is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in this APFA. Without addressing the objections raised by the other District Football Associations of the Electoral College of the Andhra Association Elections 2023 writ petition. 6. The precise case of the petitioner in W.P.No.13268 of 2023 is that a new Association was formed by one Mr. Kotagiri Sreedhar, Member of Parliament, Eluru claiming himself to be the Ad hoc President of APFA and. he himself has resolution vide letter dated 11.04.2022. Aggrieved by the W.P.No. 13152 of 2022 came to be filed. However passed a same in the instant 7 case, there is no general body meeting to elect or confirm the Executive Committee and the proceedings dated 05.05.2023, it is mentioned that only single nominations have been filed against each post and that the same is a unanimous elections and there shall be no voting but for declaration of the results. The name of the petitioner has been included in the-Electoral List/ Vopters List as he being the Secretary of the Waltair District Football Association and he deprived of his right to Franchise, Right to participate in the elections. The individual who are incompetent, ineligible to the sport have been included in the voters list. Since last date Is approaching for declaration of results i.e on 19.05.2023, despite several allegations and complaints made by the District Association and the State Association, if they succeed the same, great hardship will be caused to the petitioners and hence the present writ petition came to be filed. 7. Heard Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and relied on a 8 decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in \"Maharashtra Archery Association v. Rahui Mehra and Others’, wherein it was heid as follows;- “17. This dictum was quoted with to conciude that the right to form its continuance and Association compuisoriiy wiii be approvai by the Constitution Bench an Association inciuded the right to any law altering the composition of the a breach of the right to form the Association. Thus understood, the steps taken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the authority bestowed upon him in terms of the order of this Court dated 4th December, 2017, the Court but must be treated cannot be validated by as non est in law. It would have been a different matter if the Administrator had presented the additional to approve the amendments before this Court and invited this Court same after hearing the concerned parties. 18. Be that as it may. the question as to whether the amendments incorporated by the Administrator speak, essential as are justified and proper or, so to per the exposition of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket /s. Cricket Association of Bihar not detain us. For, the further amendments to the be effected only in the manner provided by the Constitution including in terms of the order dated 4th December, not necessary for us to examine as to whether, in fact, there T deviation or not from the dispensation predicated in the National Sports Code, as contended by the respondents appearing for the Administrator. and Ors.6, need Constitution could of the A At 2017. It is thus IS any and the counsel 22. In view of the above, we dispose of these appeais and all the applications on the following basis: (!) We declare Constitution of AAI is amended only to the extent of four that the amendments treating it as referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017 I Y Indiankanoon.org/doc/1901 17441 / 9 amended by an order of this Court, without requiring to compiy with any other formality. Rest of the amendments are declared as null and void and non est in law. The same, at best, may be pursued as a proposal to be considered after the newly elected body initiates a procedure for carrying out further amendments to the Constitution of AAI as per law. (II) We further declare that all steps taken by the Administrator on the basis of the Administrator's Constitution, including the elections conducted on 22''^ December, 2018, are null and void and non est in law. (Ill) All concerned parties are relegated to the position as it stood after the incorporation of the four amendments referred to in the order December, 2017. Further, the High Court appointed Administrator stands relieved in terms of this order. The elected body, in office, would continue to function hereafter as a Committee of Administrators appointed in terms of this order. We deem it appropriate to allow this Committee to continue in office as nothing adverse has been brought to our notice for their continuation until the newly elected body takes over. However, the Committee shall discharge only routine and day to day activities and shall not take any policy decision or create new financial liability, until the newly elected body takes over. Ih dated 4 (IV) The election for constituting the new elected body be completed by the aforementioned Committee appointed by this Court within four weeks from today and the election process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the Constitution as amended in terms of order dated 4th December, 2017. (V) The newly elected body, after taking over the office, shall move a proposal for further amendment of the Constitution to bring it in line with the National Sports Code and that process be taken to its logical end expeditiously. (VI) Any issue arising from such amendment may be raised before the High Court where the main matter i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) 10 No.195/2010 is pending. That writ petition be decided merits and in accordance with law. on its own (VII) The Committee shall submit Court immediately after the newly elected body takes but not later than six weeks from today. Issues concerning the said report may also be considered by the High Court on their own merits in accordance with law. a compliance report before the High over the office 9. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners relied decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High The Secretary, Tamilnadu Olympics Association, Chennai v. S. Nithya and Others”^, wherein it was discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Copurt in “Krishna Lai Gera v. State of Haryana’^ had categorically held at Para 21 of its Judgment that it is the duty of the High Court to strike at such actions of nepotism on a Court in favouritism, especially in the field of sports. Further in “Dwaraka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur and Others\", wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows; 6. This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it facie confers a wide power on the high court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The constitution designedly language in describing the nature of the power, the purposes for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of ex used a wide W.A.No.1202 of 2022, dated 26.04.2022 ^(2011) 10 see 529 ‘'“1966 (AIR) SeSl 11 the expression \"nature\", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with the those in England, but only draws in analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary from of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself. To say this is not to say that the High Courts can function arbitrarily under this Article. Some limitations are implicit in the article and others may be evolved to direct the article through defined channels. This interpretation has been accepted by this Court in T. C. Basappa V. Nagappa, MANU/SC/0098/1954: [1955]SCR250 and Irani v. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0080/1961 [1962J2SCR169.\" 10. The Madras High Court following the decisions cited supra held that \"when the extraordinary situation compeis, that too in the Writ Petition filed with core and crux of the issue being sports administration and management, issuing of directions as extracted above cannot be termed as travelling beyond the scope of the writ petition, but, very much within the scope of the Writ Petition. 11. He also further relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Zoroastrian Co-opearative Housing Society Ltd and 12 Another v. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Others’'^, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of Apex Court held as follows;- “■^2 The Gujarat Coopearative Societies Rules, 1965 were framed in terms of the Act. Rule 12(2) provides that no cooperative housing society shall without sufficient cause, refuse admission to its membership, to any person . duly qualified therefor provisions of the Act and its bye-laws, to whom an existing member of such society wants to sell or transfer his land of house and no such society shall, without sufficient cause, refuse to give permission to any existing member to sell or transfer his plot of land or house to another person who is duly qualified to become a member of that society.\" under the 17. Section 24 of the Act, no doubt, speaks of open membership, but Section 24(1) makes it clear that open membership is the membership of a person duly qualified therefor under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the society. In other words. Section 24(1) does not contemplate an open membership dehors the bye-laws of the society. Nor do we find anything in the Act which precludes a society from prescribing a qualification for membership based on a belief, a persuasion or a religion for that matter. Section 30(2) of the Act even places restrictions on the right of a member to transfer his right. In fact, the individual right of the member, respondent 2, has got submerged in the collective right of the Society. In State of U.P i/. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees’ Coop.Society Ltd.^ This Court after referring to Daman Singh case^ held In para 16 that: (SCC P. 691) ^(2005) 5 see 632 '^(1997) 3 see 681 ^ (1985) 2 see 670: AIR 1985 Se 973 13 \"16. Thus, it is settled law that no citizen has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) to become a member of a cooperative society. His right is governed by the provisions of the statute. So, the right to become or to continue being a member of the society is a statutory right. On fulfilment of the qualifications prescribed to become a member and for being a member of the society and on admission, he becomes a member. His being a member of the society is subject to the operation of the Act, rules.and bye-laws applicable from time to time. A member of the society has no independent right qua the society and it is the society that is entitled to relpresent as the coopearate aggregate. No individual member is entitled to assail the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws as he has his right under the Act, rules and the bye-laws and is subject to its operation. The stream cannot rise higher than the source\". 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the light of the above decisions, this Court has ample power to interfere with subject issue. Hence, requested to allow the writ petitions as prayed for. 13. Per contra, the 4'*^ respondent in W.P.No.13152 of 2022 has filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that they continue to recognize the executive body to the petitioner/ association elected on 22.05.2019, helmed by Sri Kosaraju Gopala Krishna. Subsequently, no elections have been conducted in the petitioner/ association which fact is not in dispute by either of the parties. Hence, the executive body led by Sri Kosaraju Gopala 14 Krishna continues to manage affairs of the petitioner and they will continue till fresh elections are conducted new executive body is elected and takes charge. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Respondent No.4, AIFF was under the management of a Supreme Court appointed Committee of Administrators headed by Retired Flon'ble Justice Anil Dave. [CoA; Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra, SLP (C) Nos.30748-30749/2017, elections to AIFF Electoral College between 22-08-2022 and 03-09-2022 by the COA and Supre Court appointed officers. While were to be conducted me preparing the Electoral College a dispute was raised regarding who the President of the Petitioner Association was. On 20-08-2022 and 23-08-2022 objections were raised before the Supreme Court two separate appointed Returning Officer [RO] that Sri Kosaraju Gopala Krishna should not have been included in the Electoral College for AIFF elections as he was not the President of the Petitioner Association. It was argued that pursuant to the meeting and resolution passed on 11.04.2022, Sri Muni Srinivasa Rao was the President of the Petitioner Association. The Supreme Court appointed rejected this objection and held that Sri Kosaraju Gopala Krishna ROs 15 was the lawful President of the Petitioner Association and thus included him in the Electoral College. The copies of these documents are very crucial in deciding the present writ petitions. 14. It is further contended that the 4^^ Respondent received Ih the letter dated 11.04.2022 by e-mail on 13.04.2022 from the 8 Respondent and replied on 14-04-2022, stating that as per its records, elections to the Petitioner Association were last conducted on 22.05.2019. Further, the reply also stated that on a bare perusal, the documents attached to the 8'*^ Respondent letter was not through an authorized representative, it is true that the 8 Respondent has no jurisdiction in the functioning of the petitioner association. They went to great lengths to understand situation in a holistic manner and even sought documents from 8 Respondent. However, they did not receive any response from the 8^^ Respondent nor any one on his behalf. As per byelaws of the Petitioner Association the term of office bearers was three years. Hence, the term of present executive committee is completed. But they are entitled to continue till fresh elections are conducted, a new committee is elected and takes charge. It is an ndisputed fact that the Petitioner body was duly elected in 2019. Therefore, the President of the petitioner is not a member of an th th U 16 association does not hold ground as elections were duly conducted and he was elected. On the other hand, the election sought to be conducted by the 8'^ Respondent was stayed vide an order of this Court dated 02.05.2022. Hon'ble Court's order, the 8\"^ Respondent ahead, held a meeting, and 'nominated' Notwithstanding this appears to have gone members as President and General Secretary. This clearly constitutes disobeying order of this Hon'ble High Court. Having said that, this is aware that the election of the petitioner association is due as the term of the last elected body has already come to an end. Therefore, it is essential and the respondent necessary to direct the petitioner association to conduct fresh elections at the earliest in accordance with All India Football Federation (AIFF) Constitution, 2017, which the petitioner Association is obliged to comply with. The 4*'^ respondent shall send an Observer to oversee the elections and ensure its fairness. Therefore requested to pass appropriate orders in this writ petition. 15. Perused the record. 16. It is the contention of Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the directions of this 17 Court a notification was issued in Deccan Chronicle on 23.03.2023 and Praja Sakthi on 24.03.2023. Finally on 02.04.2023 another letter was addressed to APFA to furnish details of voters list. The supervising authority also requested Mr. Kosaraju Gopala Krishna to furnish the list available with him for the purpose of consideration. Fldwever, the required information was not furnished, but he objected the voters list as it is incorrect. Further the authority furnished information from various sources including all District Football Associations, AIFF, SAAP and APOP and was finalized for creating Electoral College to the Elections to APFA. The final valid nominations were released on 01.05.2023 and the candidates were declared unanimously Elections results were elected officially. On 19.05.2023 announced and certificates were given to the candidates in the presence of supervising authority and observers from AIFF. The said supervisor has submitted a detailed report to this Court stating all the facts stated supra. It is further contended that the elections were conducted in accordance with the material available on record and after considering all objections and passing appropriate orders thereof. Finally, the 4'*^ respondent has granted affiliation to the incumbent office bearers of the 18 Association from 2023-27 in accordance with law. During midst of elections one Mr. Rayudu Nageswara Rao has filed W.P.No.8158 of 2023 to declare the action of the respondents in attempting to include the names of the outsides who are allegedly not members of the APFA as voters as illegal and arbitrary. This Court vide its order dated 26.04.2023 held that “Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that eiection initiated pursuant to the eariier directions of this court, not inclined to interfere in the -election process, however, it shall be subject to the result of the present writ petition”. process has been this court 17. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in order to defeat legitimate election | and declaration of results along with affiliation thereof incumbent members of the Association with process to the an oblique and ulterior motive, the petitioners have filed the writ petitions without any iota of evidence or right conferred upon them. All the objections were called for within stipulated time and considered the same upon perusing the material available on record. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the entire legitimate process of conducting elections besides the affairs of the Associations have come to an end. Therefore, the petitioners are 19 not entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and hence requested to dismiss the same. 18. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in “Firosh C and Others v. Palakkad District Cricket Association and Others”^, wherein learned Single Judge held as follows:- “6. Coming to the facts of the present case, as in the case dealt with by this Court in WP(C) No. 19455 of 2008, what is sought to be enforced by the petitioners is their right to continue as members of the Association, it is trite that the rights of the members of Associations in the nature of the Patakkad District Cricket Association stem from the bye-laws of the Association. In other words, the dispute in the instant case is also one for enforcement of the right of the petitioners under the bye-laws. In a disciplinary action initiated by a private body like the Association against its members, no public duty of any nature is involved, in the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notices issued by the Association. The decisions of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioners have no application to the facts of the present case: The writ petition, in the circumstances, is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine”. ®MANU/KE/1541/2016 20 19, In “Rahul Mehra and Others v. Union of India (UiO) and Others”^, wherein Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi held as follows;- 15. The petitioner iterated the following observations of the learned single Judge Ajay Jadeja (supra), adopting the same as his submissions:- \"When the Government stands by and lets a body like BCCI assume the prerogative of being a sole representative of India for cricket by permitting BCCI to choose the team for India appearance in events like the World Cup, then it necessarily imbues BCCI with the public functions at least in or far as the selection of the team to represent India and India's ■ representation in International Cricket fora and regulation of Cricket in India is concerned. Thus the monopoly status of the respondent No. 2 is evident. It is also clear that such monopoly status is indisputably state recognized as evident from the later Of Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs an Sports dated 22nd December 2000 and indeed by acquiescence of the Government, can be considered state conferred. Similarly the plea of the BCCI that it does not own or lease the stadia is of no consequence as the stadia are owned and leased by its members and it is not disputed that all international matches are played in such stadia. Similarly membership of BCCI of the International Cricket Conference (ICC) cannot ipso facto imply that it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In fact BCCI represented India on this own showing and depending upon the nature of the action impugned, would be amenable to writ Jurisdiction.\" for 17. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the whole 'amenability\" issue is mispiaced. A body, public or private, cannot be categorised as \"amenable\" or \"not amenable\" to writ jurisdiction. The ’ MANU/DE/0846/2004 21 \"function\" test is the correct one to test maintainability. If a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, qua that duty or function, and limited to that, would be subject to judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of article 226. The see/ which is the smile repository of everything cricket in India has attained this \"giant\" stature through its organisation, skill, the craze for the game in India and last but not the least by the tacit approval of the Government. Its objects are the functions and duties it has arrogated to itself. Many of these are in the nature of public duties and functions. Others may be in the field of private law such as private contracts, internal rules not affecting the public at large etc.,. Therefore, BCCI cannot be said to be beyond the sweep of article 226 in all eventualities for all times to come. That is the certificate that BCCI wants from this court. We are afraid, we cannot grant that. Consequently, this petition cannot be thrown out on the maintainability issue. This does not necessarily mean that the petitioners would be entitled to the orders, directions or writs that they seek. That will have to be examined on merits. 20. In “Mohd. Azharuddin v. K. Jhon Manoj and ,,10 , wherein Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court for the Others State of Telangana held as foilows;- 42. So when the circumstances for entertaining a Writ Petition against the Board of Control for Cricket for India are very limited since it is not a ‘State'under Art. 12 of the Constitution, it is a moot question whether a Writ Petition can be maintained against the 2\"\"' respondent, a Society which is a private body, or against the decision (final or interim) of an Cmbudsman of the said Society appointed under Rules/ Bye-laws have no statutory force. 43. The Byelaws of a Society, being in the nature of contract among the members of the Society, which is a private body, cannot lO MANU/TL/0703/2001 22 be normally enforced under Art. 226 of the Constitution facie.\" of India prima 48. In our considered opinion, when the appellant had specifically a Writ Petition at the threshold, the learned Single Judge ought to have adverted to the same and taken a view on the said aspect before proceeding in to the merits of the matter including prima facie raised the issue about maintainability of to look case etc., 21. In “Ambati Ramaiah Pradesh and Others”^'', V. Government of Andhra wherein learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows;- 41. However, even otherwise the Andhra Cricket Association was earlier governed by the Societies Registration Act, 1860, under which it was registered and now by the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which repealed by Section 32. the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in its application to the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act. 2001 provides that 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, application in the District Court concerned, which Court necessary inquiry, pass such order as it may deem fit This received consideration in All India SC. S.T. Railway Employees Association v. E. Venkateswarlu, 2003 (2) ALD 384: 2003 (3) ALT 674, wherein a learned Judge of this Court considered the right to move the District Court concerned under Section 23 of 2001 Act to be an effective remedy provided by the statute making the jurisdiction this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not invokable. or may file an shall after provision of 2012 see OiiLineAP772 23 Again in C. Babu Rao v. District Registrar, Registration of Societies, Hyderabad (supra), the learned Judge referred to Sections 23 and 32 and held the remedy of the writ petitioner therein was elsewhere than In a writ. The conclusion in respect of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, which appears on all force to be identical with the Andhra Cricket Association in all material aspects, applies with equal force to this batch of writ petitions. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy invites application of the self-imposed restraint adopted by Courts against invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in such cases.\" Zee Telefilms Ltd., and Others v. Union of 22. In {{ jj12 , wherein learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of India Andhra Pradesh held as follows:- 31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian Cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved In the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for violation of a right of citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seeks a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is much wider than Article 32.\" I2 MANU/SC/0074/2005 24 23. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed to allow the writ petitions in the light of the decisions relied by him cited supra. 24. No doubt, pursuant to the directions of this Court a notification was issued for elections, during the subsistence election process, the petitioners have filed the writ petitions to defeat the legitimate election process. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court the legitimate process of conducting elections besides the affairs of the Associations has of come to an It is appears that in the absence of any ex-facie material end. irregularities. error on the face of the record perversity, jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice further vitiates the plea of the petitioners in preferring the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is evident that the material papers supplied by the petitioners are all the District Associations registered in 2023 soon before the election process was commenced as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. Hence it invokes violation of National Sports Code, 2011 for want of three years experience to each District Football Association for grant of affiliation by APFA. By stretch of imagination, due to declaration of results to the any 25 Association on 19.03.2023 and affiliation thereof granted to the incumbent office bearers, the reliefs sought by the petitioners in the writ petitions have become infructuous. 25. The decisions relied by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, any infringement of right happened, this Court has a jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. But in the instant cases, this Court finds no infringement of right to the petitioners. Further, the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondents would amply demonstrates that the issue involved in the issue is not come under the purview of article 226 of the Constitution of India as it requires detailed trial on merits. Therefore, question of invoking procedure under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. 26. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the entire material available on record and considering the submissions of both the counsel, this Court find no merit in the case of the petitioners to interfere with the affairs of the respondents. It is aggrieved by any nature action by any of the respondents in this regard, it will be open to the petitioners to having competent before appropriate for a its remedies pursue jurisdiction, since to be decided on merits the dispute involved in these writ petitions are and it cannot be considered by invoking of India. Under aforementioned any relief Article 226 of the Constitution ; not entitled oiaini circumstances, the petitioners are- liable to be dismissed. in this writ petitions ana are s are dismissed. There it petitions 27. Accordingly, the wn shall be no order as to costs. miscellaneous petitions, if any As a sequel thereto pending shall stand closed. SdASHAIKMOHD. RAFl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC OFFICER //TRUE COPY// j • To, 1 One CC to Sri K, Naga Phanindra Advocate [OPUC 2 One CC to Sri G. R. Sudhakar, Advocate (OPUC) 6 One CC to Sri P. Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] ^5- STe fo li ^:v^Z,rK\"utear°fclr^cS?r^c» GP for Sports & Youth Affairs, High Court of Andhra 6. Two CCs to 7 One a: to Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, 8. One CC to Sri Rajgrihi Singh, ^d^ate (OPUC) 9 One CC to Sri Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu SC for (Ut^uw; 10 One CC to Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 11. One CC to M/s. Origala Ra^esh Advocate (OPUC) 12 One CC to Sri Shyam S. Agarwal Advocate (OR^S) 13’. One CC to Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad, Advocate (OPUC) 14 One CC to Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 15. One CC to 15. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED;30/08/2024 * 2 ^ FEB 2025 § ^ . Current Section . ^ ^^;£gSPATCHBS;^ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.13152 of 2022 8158, 10297 and 13268 of 2023 DISMISSING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS "
Other Referred Cases
Maharashtra Archery Association v. Rahul Mehra and Others, The Secretary, Tamilnadu Olympics Association, Chennai v. S. Nithya and Others, Krishna Lai Gera v. State of Haryana, Dwaraka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur and Others, Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Another v. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Others, Ambati Ramaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, Firosh C and Others v. Palakkad District Cricket Association and Others, Rahul Mehra and Others v. Union of India (UOI) and Others
Laws Referred To
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Affidavit - Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before ITAT - Type 2
Mehul₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026