Quashed

The Chess Association of Kerala v. the Kerala State Sports Council

Kerala HC16 Nov 2017WP(C)/36083/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the suspension of the Chess Association of Kerala's recognition issued by the Kerala State Sports Council. The Court held the suspension violated natural justice as it relied on a report from a mediation committee. An inquiry was ordered respecting the association's right to object.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order (Ext.P13) set aside; complaints supplied to petitioner; objection period granted; suspension of financial aid during inquiry.

The Chess Association of Kerala Vs the Kerala State… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/25TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 36083 of 2017 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

THE CHESS ASSOCIATION OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI. R.RAJESH FUNCTIONING AT ARAYATTUPARAMBIL BUILDING,BEHIND ANDHRA BANK, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM PIN-686004

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY SRI.V.SUBHASH BHAT SRI.M.B.RATHEESH SRI.EBIN MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶11

2. CHESS ASSOCIATION ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR, AHANA MANSION, AMBADI LANE, KRISHNASWAMI ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN-682035

¶12

R1 BY SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 36083 of 2017 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BYELAWS OF THE CHESS ASSOCIATION KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DATED 26.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE AND MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 25.9.2016
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AND MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 10.2.2017
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION OF ERNAKULAM CHESS ASSOCIATION DATED 4.5.2017
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2016 IN WPC NO.39743/2016, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/6/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF EXTRA ORDINARY GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE PETITIONER HELD ON 6.10.2017
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF A NEWS REPROT PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DALILY DATED 2.11.2017
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 2.11.2017
EXHIBIT P12:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 2.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13:	COPY OF THE ORDER DT 31/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE R1.

¶19

WP(C).No. 36083 of 2017 (I)

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.R1(a):	COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.12786/2017.
EXT.R1(b):	COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
EXT.R2(a):	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT 14/6/2017 IN WPC 19792/2017.
EXT.R2(b):	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVTI EXCLUDING THE EXHIBITS FILED THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.19792/17.
EXT.R2(c):	COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF KERALA SPORTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015.
EXT.R2(d):	COPY OF THE LIST OF SECRETARIES OF DISTRICT UNITS CLAIMED TO BE AFFILIATED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ASSOCIATION AS OBTAINED FROM ITS WEBSITE.
EXT.R2(e):	COPY OF THE SYNOPSIS OF THE WPC NO.19792 OF 2017.
EXT.R2(f):	COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 28/6/2017 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO SRI.N.R.ANILKUMAR.
EXT.R2(g):	COPY OF THE EMAIL DT 29/9/2016 SENT BY THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R2(h):	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT 30/6/2017 IN WPC NO. 28585/2017.
EXT.R2(i):	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 17/10/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PARENT OF A CHESS PLAYER TO THE R1.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 36083 of 2017 (I)

¶27

Dated: 16^th November, 2017

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is the Chess Association of the State, which was before this Court contending that they were informed through a press release that their recognition was suspended by the 1^st respondent. On appearance, the 1^st respondent produced the order across the bar and also handed it over to the petitioner, which is now challenged as Ext.P13.

¶30

The issue essentially is between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, who is the District Chess Association for Ernakulam, who was affiliated to the petitioner. There were factional feuds in the District Association at Ernakulam, which led to the 2^nd respondent being disaffiliated by the petitioner. The 2^nd

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶32

-2-

¶33

respondent was before this Court against the disaffiliation in W.P.(C) No.39743/2016. Ext.P6 is the judgment passed, wherein the 2^nd respondent was directed to avail the alternate remedies to challenge the disaffiliation. However, this Court also directed the Sports Council to appoint an observer to oversee the election of the District Association scheduled on 18.12.2016. This Court clearly found that the District Association cannot challenge the by-laws framed for the State Association in a writ petition and could either avail the remedy before the Civil Court or the Authorities under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (' TC Act' for short), under which both the State and District Associations were registered.

¶34

The District Association, admittedly, did not take up any remedy so reserved, but approached the

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶36

-3-

¶37

Sports Council with a representation making allegations against the State Association and sought for a consideration of the cancellation of the disaffiliation effected by the State Association. In the said writ petition, by Ext.R1(a), there was a direction to the State Council to consider the same. Pursuant to that, Ext.P7 notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein a Sub Committee was constituted to mediate the issue between the State Association and the District Association. The mediation was scheduled on 30.06.2017.

¶38

In the meanwhile, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the players, raising allegations against the State Association and its General Secretary, which was numbered as W.P.(C) No.19792/2017. In the said PIL, on 14.06.2017, the following order was passed:

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶40

-4-

¶41

“The grievance of the petitioners in this public interest litigation is with regard to the manner in which the Chess Association of Kerala is being run by the second respondent. The first respondent is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is affiliated to the State under the Kerala Sports Act, 2000. State provide substantial funds and being affiliated under the Act, society is virtually a State in itself.

¶42

It is submitted that under Section 31A of the Kerala Sports Act, the State has the necessary jurisdiction to look into the functioning of its affiliates. But, in the present case, the State has not taken appropriate actions. The third respondent, i.e., the Kerala State Sports Council constituted under the said Act, is represented. Let the third respondent file an affidavit in the facts and circumstances showing what action do they now propose for immediate rectification of the situation.”

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶44

-5-

¶45

It is the submission of the learned

¶46

Counsel appearing for the Sports Council that the action taken against the State Association, suspending its recognition, was in accordance with the order passed by the Division Bench and also invoking the powers conferred under Section 31A of the Kerala Sports (Amendment) Act, 2015 ('Sports Act' for short). Notices were issued to the State and District Associations as also the players who were the petitioners in the PIL. According to the learned Counsel, the Sub Committee appointed submitted a report as produced at Ext.R1(b), based on which the suspension was carried out as per Ext.P13. The learned Counsel would also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar v. State of Punjab – 1982 SCC (1) 31 to contend that a

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶48

-6-

¶49

cancellation pending enquiry does not require a notice and it would depend upon the severity of the allegations as are sought to be enquired into in a duly constituted enquiry.

¶50

The learned Counsel for the District Association would point out that there are serious allegations put forth in the report which would take in the provisions of Section 31A of the Kerala Sports (Amendment) Act, 2015, as has been argued by the Sports Council. Financial irregularities and nominating players who are not really competent are some of the allegations, placed before the Sports Council, as also in the PIL before this Court. The suspension was in order, considering the gravity of the allegations and keeping in abeyance the same would lead to further illegality being perpetrated, is the submission. The petitioner also had

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶52

-7-

¶53

notice of the allegations in the PIL, is another interesting argument raised by the District Association.

¶54

Essentially, it is to be seen that there was no enquiry contemplated by the Sports Council at the stage of issuance of notice at Ext.P7. Ext.P7, though cannot be termed to be in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench, since the order does not speak of any specification to be taken. Ext.P7 is said to be issued in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Ext.R1(a), which directed consideration of the complaint made by the District Association. There can be no defect found in the 2^nd respondent, District Association, having approached the Sports Council; though this Court, in Ext.P6, had directed the District Association to approach either the Civil Court or the authorities under the Act of 1955. The Sports Council, as is seen from Section 31A of the Sports Act, could also look into the

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶56

-8-

¶57

allegations raised by the District Association. However, it is to be noticed that the Sub Committee constituted

¶58

was not required to go into the allegations, as seen from the notice produced at Ext.P7. It was required to mediate between the District and State Associations. Presumably, the Sub Committee, after attempts to mediate had failed, made a report as seen from Ext.R1 (b). The report, however, does not indicate any mediation having been attempted nor was it served on the State Association.

¶59

The report detailed the allegations made by

¶60

the players and the District Association and after noticing the reply to the allegations, towards the end, it was opined that the State Association cannot be allowed to proceed in the manner in which it is now conducting itself; since it would be prejudicial to the sport and

¶61

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶62

-9-

¶63

detrimental to the interest of the players. There was also a proposal made by the Sub Committee to suspend the affiliation pending a detailed enquiry. The recommendation, as seen from the last page of the document, raises serious suspicion of the same being contemporaneous to the report which ends at the previous page. The print is different and it prima facie appears to be an interpolation.

¶64

Be that as it may, it is pursuant to the report, the present order has been issued at Ext.P13. Obviously, the report was not supplied to the State Association nor were the allegations referred to in Ext.P13. Definitely, there can be found power in the Sports Council to suspend a recognised Association under Section 31A of the Sports Act. However, the suspension should be on valid grounds and the order

¶65

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶66

-10-

¶67

should contain the allegations raised. Herein, broad statements were made as to the conduct of the State Association and a suspension was effected, that too, on a report submitted by the Sub Committee in a mediation constituted by the Sports Council as per the directions of this Court.

¶68

The order of suspension though sanctioned by the Statute, is based on a report; whose author, the Sub Committee was only authorised to mediate between the District And State associations. The reliance placed by the Sports Council on AIR 1982 SC 65 - Sukhvinder Pal Bipan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab is not at all applicable. Therein, licenses granted under the Public Distribution System (PDS) were suspended. The suspension order noticed the specific violations of the conditions of license, being Clauses 4, 8 and 10;

¶69

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶70

-11-

¶71

respectively of a mandate to submit quarterly returns, exhibition of price list of different food grains and unobstructed inspection of the premises; default in which mandated cancellation. Further, the provision enabling cancellation and suspension; by a proviso, permitted suspension without a notice, for a specified period. The challenge to the provision on the grounds of it being unguided, uncontrolled and uncanalised was negatived since it was found to be a measure of social control in the larger interest of the community. The suspension without notice was permitted only for 90 days, as an interim measure and the order specifically dealt with the allegations which could eventually lead to a cancellation.

¶72

In the instant case, the suspension was an abrupt decision taken by the Sports Council on the recommendations of a Sub Committee, appointed

¶73

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶74

-12-

¶75

specifically to mediate upon the disaffiliation of the District Association. The mediation has resulted in the suspension of the State Association who had disaffiliated the District Association. The suspension order also does not put forth the specific allegations against the petitioner and merely speaks of it being serious and the decision of the Sports Council that the State Association cannot be allowed to be run in the manner it is now run, without noticing the objectionable conduct, if any, of the suspended body. The facts have no identity to the cited decision and the best that could be argued is that the provision for suspension does not speak of a hearing. More apposite would be Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner - ((1978) 1 SCC 405) which held so:

¶76

“Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and

¶77

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶78

-13-

¶79

adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has, many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the hone of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of Judge-made law. Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam-and of Kautilya's Arthasastra-the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foilage are noble and not newfangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.” (para 43).

¶80

It was also held so in paragraph 77:

¶81

“We have been told that wherever the Parliament has intended a hearing it has

¶82

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶83

-14-

¶84

said so in the Act and the Rules and inferentially where it has not specificated it is otiose. There is no such sequitur. The silence of a statute has no exclusionary effect except where it flows from necessary implication. Article 324 vests a wide power and where some direct consequence on candidates emanates from its exercise we must read this functional obligation.”

¶85

The silence of the Statute cannot lead to an exclusion of the principles of natural justice and the power granted under Section 31A of the Sports Act will have to be treated as unguided, uncontrolled and uncanalsed unless the principles of audi alteram partem are read into and treated as inbuilt in the provision. The Sub Committee appointed, as is seen from Ext.P7, was also not competent to enquire into the allegations as raised by the District Association. The learned Counsel for the Sports Council, would contend that the

¶86

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶87

-15-

¶88

enquiry would be proceeded with and finalised expeditiously and in the meanwhile, the only prejudice would be insofar as not granting any financial aid. This Court is also of the opinion that no financial aid be granted during the pendency of the enquiry, especially noticing the allegations of financial irregularity.

¶89

However the cancellation of the recognition would only, again, affect the game and its players. The State and the District Associations have conflicting contentions about the calender of the game scheduled at the national level. But, both agree that, as of now, the selections have been concluded for the national games and there can be no interference caused either by the State Association or the District Association. The selected players are protected and the sport would go on. The squabbles between the organisers is the bane

¶90

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶91

-16-

¶92

of sport in our country and as long it does not affect the participants, the organisers can be left to resolve their differences and the resultant intrigue in legal tussles.

¶93

Ext.P13, hence is set aside to the extent of suspension of the recognition of the petitioner - State Association. The complaints received by the Sports Council from the District Association shall be supplied to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. The petitioner shall file objection within two weeks from the date of receipt of the complaints and the Sports Council would be entitled to carry out such enquiry and conclude the proceedings. The learned Counsel appearing for the Sports Council submits that usually the Sub Committees constituted go into such allegations. It would be competent for the Sports Council to carryout the enquiry by a duly constituted Sub Committee.

¶94

W.P.(C) No. 36083/2017

¶95

-17-

¶96

The writ petition is disposed of without any observations on the allegations raised against both the Associations; which a duly constituted Sub-Committee will have to go into. No Costs.

¶97

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶98

jjj 16/11/17

The Chess Association of Kerala v. the Kerala State Sports Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chess Association of Kerala v. the Kerala State Sports Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamza.P Vs Canara Bank

S.Surekha Vs State of Kerala

Bhavani Vs Tahsildar

Simma D(Minor), Rep.by Her Mother Deepa Dinesh Vs the Assistant Educational Officer

Avinash Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Pooja S Raja(Minor) Vs the Principal , Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan School