Dismissed

V. Durga Prasad, v. Andhra Cricket Association

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Apr 2023WA/411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal challenged the order of the Ombudsman and the Single Judge dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which imposed a penalty of relinquishing the post of Secretary of the Andhra Cricket Association for violating prohibitory orders regarding an election conducted by the Krishna District Cricket Association. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

V. Durga Prasad, Vs Andhra Cricket Association — Company and Corporate | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶3

Writ Appeal No.411 of 2022

¶4

JUDGMENT: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

¶5

The challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order dated 16.03.2022 in W.P.No.27180/2021 passed by the learned single Judge confirming the order dated 03.11.2021 in I.A.No.1/2021 in case No.5/2020 passed by the learned Ethics Officer / learned Ombudsman imposing punishment on the petitioner of relinquishment of his post of the Secretary of Andhra Cricket Association.

¶6

2. The facts shorn of redundant details which led to file the instant writ appeal are that the 1^st respondent is the Andhra Cricket Association (for short, ‘the ACA’) which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and pursuant to the judgment dated 09.08.2018 in Civil Appeal No.4235/2014 & batch passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Memorandum of Association & Rules and Regulations of the ACA were framed in implementing the Justice Lodha Committee reforms as approved by the Apex Court.

¶7

¶8

(a) While so, the 3^rd respondent as Vice President of Krishna District Cricket Association (for short, ‘the KDCA’) submitted a complaint dated 19.06.2020 to the Apex Council of ACA, wherein he stated that election to the office bearers of KDCA were last conducted on 31.08.2016 for a term of three years which came to an end by 31.08.2019 and as per the existing byelaws of KDCA, the office bearers who completed their term of office are also voters in the capacity of Ex-officer bearers but as per the byelaws implemented by ACA as envisaged by the Lodha Committee they cannot have voting right in the corresponding elections and therefore, in view of the amended byelaws of ACA, the existing byelaws of KDCA have to be replaced. He further stated in his complaint that though the term of office of the existing office bearers was completed by 31.08.2019, no steps were taken by the President and hence, the Apex Council, ACA may give direction to KDCA to conduct smooth elections in accordance with the amended byelaws of ACA for a term of three years i.e., for the period from 2020 to 2023. The said complaint was forwarded by ACA to the 2^nd respondent / learned Ombudsman.

¶9

(b) The said complaint was registered as case No.5/2020 and learned

¶10

Ombudsman proposed to consider the issue as to whether KDCA needs to

¶11

¶12

be directed to implement the Memorandum of Association and rules and regulations adopted by ACA and conduct the next election of the office bearers accordingly by giving opportunity to all the necessary parties therein. Accordingly, while directing the KDCA and ACA to file their counters, learned Ombudsman passed an interim order dated 19.07.2020 directing the KDCA that it shall not conduct any elections for its office bearers until further orders.

¶13

(c) It should be noted that after receiving counters and hearing the respondents, learned Ombudsman passed the final order in case No.5/2020 on 10.11.2020, wherein he directed the 1^st respondent / KDCA to take steps to implement necessary measures and reforms as approved by the Supreme Court and adopted by the ACA within two months from the date of serving a copy of the order and at the end of the said period the present body which is being run under the present byelaws / rules would seize to exist if the reforms are not implemented by the end of the said period, in which case the ACA has to make necessary incharge arrangements which shall be in force till the 1^st respondent complies with the order. It was further directed that the ACA to prepare draft byelaws / rules and regulations for 1^st respondent and send them for implementation. It was

¶14

¶15

also directed that ACA to take steps to implement the reforms in the entire State of A.P. within three months ending with 10.02.2021.

¶16

(d) Be that as it may, the 3^rd respondent herein, who was the Vice

¶17

President of KDCA filed a complaint dated 07.04.2021, wherein he alleged that inspite of the orders in case No.5/2020 and previous interim orders, the appellant herein who was the Secretary of ACA participated in Executive Committee meeting of KDCA dated 11.11.2020, wherein the election date of KDCA was fixed and further he actively assisted the KDCA to conduct illegal elections on 06.12.2020 and he was physically present with the Election Officer throughout when the nominations were filed by five members and thus, he grossly violated the orders of the learned Ombudsman as the elections were held to KDCA without making amendments to byelaws as contemplated in the orders of the learned Ombudsman. In the said complaint, he thus prayed learned Ombudsman to take necessary action in the matter as the ACA had not taken any steps in that regard.

¶18

(e) The above complaint was registered as I.A.No.1/2021 in case

¶19

No.5/2020 and after receiving the counters of the respondents and hearing both parties, the learned Ombudsman having found that the evidence

¶20

¶21

produced before him manifested that the appellant herein in violation of the orders in case No.5/2020 actively encouraged KDCA to conduct illegal elections, for which one Satyanand was illegally appointed as election officer and that the appellant was present throughout with every member who filed nominations before elections and saw that the election was conducted and thus violated the orders of the learned Ombudsman and his denial of those facts was not correct and accordingly, passed punishment against the appellant herein of relinquishment of his post as Secretary of ACA with immediate effect.

¶22

(f) Aggrieved, the appellant herein filed W.P.No.27180/2021. A

¶23

learned single Judge having found no merits in the writ petition dismissed the same on 16.03.2022.

¶24

Hence, the writ appeal.

¶25

3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant Sri Anup Koushik

¶26

Karavadi, and Sri N.Ravi Prasad and Smt. P.Akhila Naidu, counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 respectively.

¶27

4. While fulminating the order of learned single Judge, learned counsel

¶28

for appellant argued that the appellant has not violated the orders of the

¶29

¶30

learned Ombudsman as the request placed by the KDCA dated 26.11.2020 was approved by five out of nine Apex Council members for the proposal of KDCA to conduct the elections by complying with the Lodha Committee reforms. He further argued that learned Ombudsman has no jurisdiction or authority to pass the impugned orders as there was no dispute between ACA and its members and no complaint was received by ACA and forwarded to learned Ombudsman to take up the enquiry. Hence, the entire procedure followed by the learned Ombudsman and his orders are vitiated as they are against the byelaws.

¶31

5. Per contra, Sri N.Ravi Prasad, counsel for respondent No.1, would argue that as against the orders passed by the learned Ombudsman, the appellant being the Secretary of the ACA, instead of obeying the orders, actively aided and abetted the conduction of elections of KDCA which is borne out by record and since his acts are in utter violation of the spirit of the Lodha Committee guidelines and orders of the learned Ombudsman, he was rightly punished and learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

¶32

6. The points for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ appeal to allow?

¶33

¶34

7. Point: The main allegation against the appellant herein is that inspite of the interim order and final order dated 10.11.2020 in case No.5/2020 passed by the learned Ombudsman, the appellant being Secretary of ACA actively participated in the election process of KDCA. In Para 16 of the order, learned Ombudsman observed that the evidence of PW1 and the documents marked and admission made by the 2^nd respondent showed that the appellant herein participated in the meeting as a special invitee and then the election date was fixed as 06.12.2020 and one Sri Satyanand was appointed as election officer and the appellant signed in the attendance register and minutes book and during the course of filing of nominations before the election officer, the appellant was present and on the date of election i.e., 06.12.2020 five persons were unanimously declared elected as office bearers and at that time also the appellant herein had participated as special invitee and signed in the attendance book and minutes book and thus the evidence of PW1 proved the circumstances and the contents of the documents marked which established that the appellant had actively aided and participated in the election process for the election of the office bearers of Apex Council of KDCA. Learned Ombudsman observed that the acts of the appellants herein cannot be taken as accidental

¶35

¶36

or innocent or unintentional attendance rather it was to be taken as done deliberately with an object to aid successful completion of the election process by illegal method. Learned Ombudsman further observed that the appellant herein in one way admitted the allegations by saying that any action done by him in the capacity of the Secretary of the ACA bonafidely and that the elections were conducted in the line of objective of Lodha Committee reforms. Learned Ombudsman further observed that the aforesaid acts of the appellant herein are in utter violation and disobedience of the orders dated 10.11.2021 and 05.12.2021 by which it was prohibited to conduct election process and elections of KDCA. Inspite of prohibited orders, the officials of KDCA invited the appellant being the Secretary of ACA who participated as a special invitee in the illegal election process and also in the election of KDCA and that has been done with the audacity to violate the prohibitory orders. With these and other observations, learned Ombudsman came to conclusion that the appellant herein has deliberately flouted the orders of the learned Ombudsman and accordingly, awarded the punishment of relinquishment of the Secretaryship of ACA. Learned single Judge having found no merits dismissed the writ petition.

¶37

¶38

8. We gave our anxious consideration to the impugned orders of learned Ombudsman and also the learned single Judge. It must be said that as rightly observed by learned Ombudsman there is a formidable evidence to manifest that the appellant has actively participated throughout the election process and the election of the KDCA inspite of prohibitory orders issued by the learned Ombudsman were in force. Except stating that he has done in good faith and five members of the Apex Council have approved the proposal to conduct elections for KDCA, the appellant could not justify his acts before the learned Ombudsman. He being the Secretary of ACA cannot take excuse on the ruse that the majority members of the Apex Council approved the election process. It is his duty to see that the orders of the learned Ombudsman which were issued to follow the guidelines of the Lodha Committee reforms, were implemented in letter and spirit. However, he deliberately violated the order which is manifest from the record. Therefore, he was rightly punished. His argument that the learned Ombudsman has no jurisdiction or authority to take up and enquire the complaint allegations does not hold substance for, learned Ombudsman in Paras 30 & 31 of his order clarified that the enquiry can be initiated in terms of Rule 45(1)(c) though the complaint was not routed

¶39

¶40

through Apex Council since under Rule 45(1)(c), the role of Apex Council was just like a postman who has to receive and deliver the complaints and except that it had no discretion to refuse or to receive the complaints and to scrutinize and to close ultimately. Having regard to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the guidelines of the Lodha Committee reforms which aimed at safeguarding the game of cricket and to refer the disputes to the learned Ombudsman as an internal mechanism to settle the disputes, the aforesaid observation of the learned Ombudsman can be found to be in correct lines. Thus, at the outset, we do not find any merits in the case of appellant and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶44

___________________________ B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J

¶45

19.04.2023 MVA

V. Durga Prasad, v. Andhra Cricket Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Durga Prasad, v. Andhra Cricket Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Tropical Coatings International Private Limited Vs the Authorized Officer

Navata Eco Bricks Vs Punjab National Bank

Smt. Gurram Sujatha, Vs Authorised Officer

SarepalliMukanda Lakshmi at Revella Swetha Arun Vs State Bank of India

Putti Sandhya Rani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P Murugesan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh