All India Carrom Federation Vs Union of India

$~36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 3513/2026 & CM APPL. 16977/2026, CM APPL. 16978/2026, CM APPL. 21055/2026, CM APPL. 21058/2026, CM APPL. 21061/2026, CM APPL. 31519/2026

ALL INDIA CARROM FEDERATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Deesh Narayan, petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Udit Dedhiya, SPC with Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Ms. Preyansha Gupta, Advocates with Ms. Akanksha, GP. Mr. Aseem Mehrotra and Ms. Deeksha Mehtra, Advocates for applicants in CM APPL. 21055/2026, CM APPL. 21058/2026, CM APPL. 21061/2026

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 11.05.2026

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶7

Page 1 of 6

¶8

W.P.(C) 3513/2026

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:54:11

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is against the impugned communication dated 6^th February 2026 issued by the respondent, whereby the election results of the petitioner federation were not accepted and renewal of recognition was denied.

¶12

Notice in the present petition was issued vide order dated 18^th March 2026, on which date the respondent was directed to file counter-affidavit. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/Union of India. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated as under:

¶13

4.1. The election process undertaken by the petitioner federation was not in conformity with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (hereinafter ‘Sports Code’) and the Model Election Guidelines applicable to National Sports Federations (NSF).

¶14

4.2. The Ministry had previously raised concerns with regard to violations of Clause 3.10 of Annexure-II of the Sports Code and therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the deficiencies pointed out by the Ministry.

¶15

Page 2 of 6

¶16

W.P.(C) 3513/2026

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:54:11

¶19

Mr. Vivek Dheesh Narayan, the Authorised Representative of the petitioner, who appears in-person, submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner. Hence, the same is in violation of the Sports Code. He further submits that the alleged deviations referred to in the impugned letter are factually incorrect and contrary to the material already placed before the respondent. An email dated 4^th February 2026 had specifically been addressed to the respondent seeking an opportunity of hearing before any adverse action is taken. However, despite the said request, the respondent proceeded to issue the impugned order.

¶20

Mr. Udit Dedhiya, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has drawn the attention of the Court to guidelines for recognition of the National Sports Federation’s procedure for suspension/withdrawal of recognition and consequences thereof (pages 68 and 69 of the writ petition). He further submits that the speaking order was passed in terms of the directions passed by the Division Bench on 30^th January, 2026, in LPA 697/2025.

¶21

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶22

As noted above, the main ground of challenge of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to meet the grounds taken for de-recognition in the impugned order. Though certain concerns had earlier been expressed by the respondent with regard to compliance with the Sports Code, no specific show cause notice proposing de-recognition or rejection of the election dated 27^th August 2023 was issued to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned letter.

¶23

A reference may be made to the ‘Guidelines For Recognition of

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

W.P.(C) 3513/2026

¶26

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:54:11

¶27

National Sports Federations’ provided as Annexure-II to the Sports Code, the relevant portion of which is set out below:

¶28

“PROCEDURE FOR SUSPENSION/WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF

¶29

I. …

¶30

II. WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION:

¶31

Recognition may be withdrawn in case of any of the following:

¶32

(i) the same has been obtained by misrepresentation of material information or by fraudulent means;

¶33

(ii) violation of the terms and conditions of recognition or of Government Guidelines or of the provisions of their own constitution; b 7

¶34

(iii) in the judgment of the Government of India, the Federation is not functioning in the best interest of development of sports for which the Federation was granted recognition;

¶35

(iv) an inquiry confirms serious irregularities regarding the functioning of the Federation;

¶36

(v) the concerned International or Asian Federation permanently derecognises or disaffiliates a National Federation. Similarly, derecognition may take place in the event that the JOA permanently derecognises or disaffiliates National Federation. Before withdrawal of recognition, the concerned NSF will however, be given reasonable opportunity to present their defence.

¶37

III. …”

¶38

In terms of the aforesaid, withdrawal of recognition can only be done after giving ‘reasonable opportunity through the concerned NSF to present their defence’.

¶39

Mr. Dedhiya has drawn the attention of the Court to a letter dated 7^th December, 2020 sent by the respondent to the petitioner. For ease of reference, the said letter is reproduced below:-

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

W.P.(C) 3513/2026

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:54:11

¶44

Having perused the aforesaid communication dated 7^th December 2020, in the opinion of this Court, the said communication cannot be considered to be a show cause notice or an opportunity to the petitioner to present its case.

¶45

Even though the impugned letter may have been passed in compliance with the directions passed by the Division Bench, it would not mean that the procedural requirements of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, as provided in the aforesaid Guidelines, are not complied with.

¶46

Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is deemed appropriate that the impugned letter dated 6^th February, 2026, be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner.

¶47

Reply to the aforesaid communication has been filed by the petitioner vide communication dated 9^th February, 2026 (Annexure A-26 to the writ petition).

¶48

In view of the above, it is directed that a fresh order with regard to the

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

W.P.(C) 3513/2026

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:54:11

¶53

recognition of the petitioner association shall be passed by the respondent/UOI within eight (8) weeks from today.

¶54

Petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶55

All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

AMIT BANSAL, J

MAY 11, 2026 ds

Page 6 of 6

W.P.(C) 3513/2026

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 12:54:11

All India Carrom Federation v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India Carrom Federation v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Sharma & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Workmen Represented by Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union Vs Management of Air India (Formerly Known as Indian Airlines Ltd.)

Union of India & Ors. Vs Prasanta Mondal

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Somnath

Cpio Upsc Vs D Thamizhamani

Hasan Agah and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Allahabad Bank Vs R.S.Saini

Praveen Singh Chauhan Security Agency Private Limited Vs Public Works Department (Pwd) & Ors.

Sanjay Katyal & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi MCD through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Kantilal Chaggan Naik President Chankya Janta Paksh Vs Election Commission of India and Anr.

Indrani Ghosh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Mukesh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ms Highway Trans Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gnct of Delhi Transport Department

Chetna Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.