Allowed

Sambasiva Sarma K. v. Kerala Cricket Association (Kca)

Kerala HC4 Mar 2021WP(C)/28565/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an Apex Council member challenging an Ombudsman's order that barred him from prosecuting writ petitions against the Kerala Cricket Association while remaining on the council. The court held that there was no provision disqualifying such conduct and the petitioner could continue as a member provided he refrains from participating in discussions

What did the court decide?

Order passed by the Ombudsman directing the petitioner not to continue as a member of the Apex Council till the disposal of writ petitions was quashed.

Sambasiva Sarma K. Vs Kerala Cricket Association (Kca) — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.28565 OF 2020(U)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SAMBASIVA SARMA K. AGED 35 YEARS S/O. DR.S.KRISHNA SARMA, APEX COUNCIL MEMBER, KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, SRIPATHY, VEERABADRA GARDENS, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.AJIT JOY SRI.ANEESH JAMES

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION (KCA) KCA COMPLEX, SASTHANKOVIL ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.SREEJITH V.NAIR.

¶13

2 THE OMBUDSMAN CUM ETHICS OFFICER KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION (KCA), JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, KALOOR, COCHIN -682 017.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2021, THE COURT ON 04.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶17

¶18

P.V.ASHA, J .

¶19

W.P(c) No.28565 of 2020-U

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2021

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Ext.P6 order passed by the Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer - the 2^nd respondent, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner is a member of the Apex Council of the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA). It is stated that, at a time when he was the Secretary of Omega Cricket Club affiliated to the Trivandrum District Cricket Association, he had filed W.P.(C) No.26059 of 2018 praying for a direction to carry out forensic audit in the accounts of KCA. He had also filed W.P(c).No.19249 of 2019 challenging the dismissal of a complaint by the Ombudsman, relating to the election and admission of certain clubs in Trivandrum District Cricket Association. The petitioner claims that he has been

¶23

assertive about the need for proper governance in the KCA and has been advocating measures for the KCA to function in a professional and transparent manner, opposing corruption. He claims to have contributed to the report of Justice Lodha Committee. According to him, the office bearers of the 1^st respondent have an inimical attitude towards him on account of his assertive stand. It is stated that after his election to the Apex Council in the meeting held on

¶24

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶25

¶26

26.01.2020 he had questioned the functioning of the 1^st respondent in violation of the Bye-law. It is stated that in order to restrict him the 1^st respondent had sent Ext.P2 email on 10.10.2020 to the Indian Cricket Association (ICA) stating that the members of the Apex Council are having only a restricted role and they are not expected to interfere with the governance of KCA. It is stated that as per Ext.P3 letter dated 31.10.2020 the ICA had rejected the said statement of the 1^st respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner had sent Ext.P4 email on 01.11.2020 to respondents 1 and 2 regarding the non convening of Apex Council and the manner in which governing board was taking decisions without discussion with the Apex Council. Whileso, the 2^nd respondent, initiated suo motu proceedings regarding non-convening of the Apex Council contrary to the mandate of the byelaw and as per Ext.P5 order dated 16.11.2020, the Ombudsman directed the office to number the matter showing KCA and the petitioner as respondents and posted the matter on 23.11.2020, permitting the petitioner to appear through an Advocate. Thereafter, in Ext.P6 order, the 2^nd respondent considered two points in the SM. 1/2020: One was in respect of the non-convening of Apex Council, when the bye-law mandates that meeting shall be convened every three months. Taking note of the fact that the last meeting was in November, 2020 and the lock down was ordered thereafter as well as the feasibility to conduct meeting online, KCA was directed to follow the mandate in the bye-law. The 2^nd point considered was regarding prosecution of Writ Petitions by a member of the Apex Council. The 2^nd respondent found that a juristic person can function only

¶27

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶28

¶29

through its office bearers. It was also found that the constitutional right of the petitioner to pursue his Writ Petitions cannot be curtailed; but he is not entitled to sit in Apex Council meetings and take decisions including even in matters of defending the cases. It was left to the petitioner to take a decision either to continue in the Apex Council or to prosecute the Writ Petitions. The petitioner challenges this order alleging that the said order is passed on a non-existent complaint and, that too, in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. It is his contention that the 2^nd respondent does not have any jurisdiction to pass such an order, that too, on the basis of an oral submission made by the 1^st respondent. According to the petitioner, Writ Petitions filed by him before his election to the apex council is not violative of the bye-laws and the only ground disqualifying a person on being an Apex Councillor is as provided in R14(3) of the Bye-laws, which does not include such a contingency. It is further alleged that the impugned order is contrary to the public policy of India and there cannot be any provision that legal proceedings cannot be launched or pursued and therefore the said order is liable to be set aside. He further points out that the Writ Petitions were not against the present office bearers of the 1^st respondent or against any of the acts or decisions of the 1^st respondent after his becoming a member of the Apex Council. It is also stated that no such objection was raised at the time of election to the ICA or after the election and that pursuing of the Writ Petitions would not interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as a member of the Apex Council. He also states that on 26.01.2020, when the discussion was being held relating to the cases, he

¶30

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶31

¶32

stayed out and on similar arrangements he would be able to continue as Apex

¶33

Councilor while pursuing the Writ Petitions.

¶34

The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the impugned order. It is stated that the KCA is a society registered under the Act XII/1955 and it is the only affiliated and recognised unit of BCCI in the State of Kerala; the Secretary of the KCA is competent to represent it in all legal proceedings; the petitioner is one of the Councillors of the Apex Council, which is the primary governing committee of the 1^st respondent; as per the bye-laws of the 1^st respondent the supreme authority of the 1^st respondent is the general body, which is comprised of Honorary Secretaries and two members from 14 affiliated District Cricket Associations, men and women players, who had represented India in international cricket from the State. Governance of the affairs of KCA is executed through the Apex Council and the Apex Council is comprised of 9 Councillors out of whom 5 are elected office bearers from the general body of the KCA; one is nominated by the general body of KCA, and one male and one female are nominated by the ICA for the purpose of representing the interest of players and one to be nominated by the Accountant General of Kerala from among the senior functionaries of the office; the petitioner is the male representative of the ICA nominated to the Apex Council of KCA; the bye-law ensures predominance of the 1^st respondent KCA as two-third strength of Apex Council is made up of their representatives and remaining councillors are only nominees from outside; the petitioner is one of the councillors of the Apex Council which is the primary

¶35

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶36

¶37

governing committee of the 1^st respondent. Pointing out the objectives of the Indian Cricketers Association (ICA) in Ext.R1(3) memorandum of association, the 1^st respondent has stated that the ICA cannot go beyond the memorandum of association and that as per the bye-laws of the KCA the members of ICA also have to adhere to the rules and regulations of KCA. Even the amendments to the byelaws/rules and regulations of the ICA can be carried out only in consultation with the BCCI. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. A.Lekshmana Swamy & Ors. v. LIC [AIR 1963 SC 1185] it is stated that the members of the ICA which is a company constituted under the Companies Act cannot go beyond its objectives. It is further stated that the petitioner is always trying to intervene in the administration of the KCA; whereas being a nominee from ICA to the Apex Council he can represent only the cause of players and does not have any jurisdiction to interfere with the management of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent states that the President of the ICA in an interview held on 17.11.2019, confirmed that role of ICA members in Apex Council is for cricket things and not for management and the ICA nominees cannot dictate terms. It is stated that the Omega Cricket Club, of which the petitioner was Secretary prior to his election to the Apex Council, was purchased from one Mahesh Anand.L and he made his father and other relatives, its office bearers against the norms of the Association. It was objected to by the Trivandrum DCA. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted his nomination in the election to the District Committee held in 2017, when he got 5 votes out of around 100 votes and lost the election. He thereafter

¶38

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶39

¶40

challenged the election filing O.A.No.2/2017 before the Ombudsman. When the Ombudsman dismissed the same, he filed W.P(c).No.19249/2019. It is stated that the election which is under challenge in that Writ Petition, was conducted by the KCA and therefore the KCA would not be in a position to take a stand against the decisions already executed. In the case of the second Writ Petition it is stated that accounts of the KCA were audited by one of the reputed firms in Kerala - M/s.Varma & Varma. Those accounts were passed in the general body. It is stated that prosecution of the case after his election would be in violation of clause 15(4) (d) of the bye-law which provides that it is the duty of the Apex Council to institute or defend any action or proceedings for and against the KCA or against any office bearers or employees of the KCA. According to the respondents, the petitioner has to stand with the KCA. If the petitioner proceeds with the cases he will have to prosecute and defend a case simultaneously. Under Clause 44, the KCA can be sued in the name of the secretary. It is stated that in the meeting held by the KCA on 03.11.2019, it was decided not to co-operate with the nominees of the ICA. According to the 1^st respondent, the Ombudsman has got every authority to direct production of any documents or compel the presence of any witnesses and there is nothing wrong in taking up the matter suo motu.

¶41

3 . Relying on the provisions contained in Sections 9, 10 and 23 of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as Act 22/55) and the judgments of the Bombay High Court reported in Satyavart Sidhantalankar v. The Arya Samaj Bombay [1946 Bom.

¶42

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶43

¶44

516] reiterated by this Court in Prem Kumar v. Sree Narayanan Bhaktha Paripalana Yogam : 2018 KHC 117: 2018 (1) KLT 944, Sri. Ajith Joy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the KCA, which is a Society registered under the Act 22/55, is a legal entity which can sue or be sued in its own name. It was held therein that the normal rule, that same individual even in different capacities cannot be both a plaintiff and a defendant, is subject to exceptions in equity in cases where it would be possible to assert the rights and liabilities of the parties in the event of all the parties being present before the court either in the group of plaintiffs or defendants.

¶45

KCA is a legal entity and there cannot be any objection against the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petitions while continuing as a member of the Apex council. It is also argued that the issue raised herein would not come under the definition of conflict of interest defined in clause 1A(g) and in clause 38. The proviso to Section 10 is also relevant.

¶46

On the other hand, Sri. Abhilash, learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent, relying on the provisions contained in the byelaws and the judgment of this Court in Rajan AC & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tvm & Ors. [2019 (4) KLT 234] argued that the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue his fight against the KCA while continuing as a member of the governing council.

¶47

Having heard the contentions on both sides it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions in the memorandum of association as well as in the

¶48

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶49

¶50

1955 Act. The Memorandum of Association of the KCA would show that KCA is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. Section 2(a) of the Act 55, defines governing body as follows:

¶51

“2 (a). `Governing body' means the governors, council, directors, committee, trustees or other body to whom, by the rules and regulations of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted.”

¶52

As per the memorandum of association of the KCA, “ Apex Council ” is

¶53

defined under Clause 1A(b) as “the principal body of the KCA under the regulations for Registration of Players' Agents.”.

¶54

Clause 14(10) provides that for the purposes of the TravancoreCochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, the governing body of the KCA shall be the Apex Council. Section 9 of the 1955 Act reads as follows:

¶55

“9.Suits by and against society : Every society may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal, secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and in default of such determination, in the name; of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion:

¶56

Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim for demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman, or principal, secretary or the trustees thereof if on application to the governing body, some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant.”

¶57

Clause 44 of the memorandum of association provides that KCA shall sue or be sued in the name of the Secretary.

¶58

Governing body is defined in clause 1A(p) as the standing

¶59

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶60

¶61

committee constituted by KCA which shall be in charge of and conduct the premier league.

¶62

As per clause 1A(o), general body is defined as ''the supreme body of the KCA which is constituted by its members and it shall mean and be comprised of the Honorary Secretaries of the member District Associations and two nominated representatives from each member District Association, men and women players who has represented in international cricket from the state.''

¶63

As per Clause IA(g) “Conflict of interest” refers to situations where an individual associated with the KCA in any capacity acts in a manner that brings or is perceived to bring the interest of the individual in conflict with the interest of the game of cricket and that may give rise to apprehensions of or actual favoritism, lack of objectivity, bias, benefits (monetary or otherwise) or linkages, as set out in rule 38.

¶64

In Clause 38, which provides for different forms of conflict of interest

¶65

with illustrations, it would appear that a contingency as one arising in this case was not envisaged.

¶66

Sub clause 5 of Clause 6, which provides for the circumstances whereby a person shall be disqualified from being an office bearer, a member of the governing council or any committee or a representative to the BCCI or any similar organisation, does not include a person, who is prosecuting cases against

¶67

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶68

¶69

KCA. Clause 6(5) reads as follows:

¶70

“6. Election & Term of Office Bearers : (1) xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶71

(5) A person shall be disqualified from being an office bearer, a member of the Governing Council or any Committee or a representative to the BCCI or any similar organization if he or she:

¶72

a) is not a citizen of India;

¶73

b) has attained the age of 70 years;

¶74

c) is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind;

¶75

d) is a Minister or Government Servant or holds a public office;

¶76

e) holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket;

¶77

f) has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years or of a state association for a cumulative period of 9 years; or has been charged by a Court of Law for having committed any criminal offence, ie. an order framing charges has been passed by a court of law having competent jurisdiction.”

¶78

Clause 14 which deals with Apex Council provides that there shall be

¶79

an apex council for the KCA which shall be primarily responsible for the governance of the KCA. Sub clause 2 provides for its composition, according to which, there shall be 9 councillors out of which 5 shall be elected office bearers and the remaining 4 shall be (a) one to be elected by the Full members of the KCA; (b) one male and one female to be nominated by the cricket players' association from amongst those of the representatives who hail from Kerala; (c) one to be nominated by the Accountant General of Kerala from among the senior functionaries of the office, co-terminus with the nominee's tenure.

¶80

Clause 15 (1) to (4) read as follows:

¶81

“15. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE APEX COUNCIL

¶82

Without prejudice to the generality of powers conferred directly or by necessary implication under these Rules and regulations and the Memorandum of Association, the

¶83

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶84

¶85

Apex Council shall exercise the powers and perform the duties hereafter mentioned.

¶86

(1) The affairs of the KCA shall be governed by the Apex Council and its framework of governance shall:

¶87

(i) Enable strategic guidance of the entity;

¶88

(ii) Ensure efficient monitoring of management;

¶89

(iii) Ensure the performance of the respective roles, responsibilities and powers of the CEO, Managers, Cricket Committees and Standing Committees, except the Governing Council; and

¶90

(iv) Ensure a distribution and balance of authority so that no single individual has unfettered powers.

¶91

(2) The Apex Council shall have all the powers of the General Body and authority and discretion to do all acts and things except such acts as by these rules are expressly directed or required to be done by the General Body. Exercise of such powers, authorities and discretion shall be subject to the control and regulation of the General Body. No regulation shall retrospectively invalidate any act of the Apex Council which was otherwise valid.

¶92

(3) The Apex Council shall exercise superintendence over the CEO, the Cricket Committees and the Standing Committees in the discharge of their duties generally, and in particular, in accordance with any general or special direction of the General Body, except for the Governing Council of the KPL which is directly accountable to the General Body.

¶93

(4) In addition to and without prejudice to the generality of powers conferred directly or by necessary implication under these Rules and regulations and the Memorandum of Association, the Apex Council shall exercise the powers and perform the duties hereafter mentioned:

¶94

a) To control, permit and regulate all aspects regarding the visits of cricket teams to Kerala and visits of Kerala Team to other states and foreign countries to settle the terms on which such visits shall be conducted.

¶95

b) To lay down conditions on which Players shall take part in a tour to any state/foreign country and by which such Players shall be governed, including terms of payment to such players.

¶96

c) To control, expand and regulate the finances of the KCA.

¶97

d) To institute or defend any action or proceedings for or against the KCA or

¶98

against any Office-Bearer or employee of the KCA.

¶99

e) To mediate in regard to issues between Members, failing resolution of which a reference may be made to the Ombudsman.

¶100

f) To interact and consult with the Cricket Players' Association regarding

¶101

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶102

¶103

representations made on their behalf.

¶104

g) To purchase, sell and/or mortgage, exchange and/or otherwise dispose of immovable property wherever situated, in order to promote the objects of the KCA.

¶105

h) To collect funds and whenever necessary borrow with or without security for purposes of the KCA and to raise loans with or without security and to purchase, redeem or pay off any such security.

¶106

i) To fill up, till the following Annual General Meeting, any vacancy occurring of a member of a committee by reason of death or being adjudged insolvent or being of unsound mind or being convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude or by resignation or any other disqualification.

¶107

j) To frame rules and lay down conditions including those of travel, accommodation and allowances under which Players shall take part in cricket tournaments/matches or Exhibition, Festival and Charity matches organized by the KCA in the course of a visit or tour of any cricket team to Kerala.

¶108

k) To frame rules for the state level matches or for University, Schools or other tournaments or for any Exhibition matches between members and / or between the Universities.

¶109

l) To frame rules regarding the appointment, service conditions and disciplinary action concerning employees and officers of the KCA.

¶110

m) To make the Tournament Rules for various domestic tournaments and exhibition matches involving Members, Universities and other entities.

¶111

n) To frame, in consultation with the CEO, rules for the appointment of Managers, Secretaries, Administrative Officers, Peons and other service personnel and staff and for payment to them and other persons in return for their services rendered to the KCA, salaries, wages, gratuities, pensions, honorariums, compensations, any exgratia payment and/or provident fund and to regular discipline by suspending, fining, removing or dismissing such employees.

¶112

o) To make rules generally for the management of the affairs of the KCA. p) To start or sponsor and/or to subscribe to funds or stage a match for the benefit of cricketers or persons who may have rendered service to the game of cricket or for their families or to donate for the development or promotion of the game to be regulated by rules framed in this regard from time to time.

¶113

q) To either on its own, of through its delegate, entertain, hear and decide administrative appeals by employees or other directly affected parties against the orders of the CEO or the Cricket Committees as the case may be.

¶114

r) Generally, to do all such other acts and things which are delegated to it by the KCA and all other functions to be expedient, convenient and/or conducive to the

¶115

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶116

¶117

carrying out of the above functions of the Apex Council.

¶118

s) If any member of the General Body of the KCA including a councilor, Office bearers, executive committee members of District Cricket Association and its members, a member club, a member of a member club who indulges in activities which is detrimental to the interest of association and game of cricket or willfully refuses or neglects to comply with any decision of the Association or to comply with any provisions of the rules or be guilty of such conduct as the Apex council may consider likely to endanger the harmony or affect the character and stability, the Apex council may suspend such member on prima facia satisfaction about the charges levelled against such person. The apex council shall constitute a sub-committee to enquire into the allegations/charge levelled against such persons and the committee

¶119

shall submit a report to the Ombudsman.

¶120

t) No office bearer of the Association or Apex council member or trustee shall be paid any bonus, honorarium or other emoluments excepting travelling allowances, dearness allowances, rental, medical and out of pocket expenses. Members rendering services to the Association shall be entitled to get remuneration.

¶121

Provided that the exercise of powers under Clauses (j), (k), (I), (m), (hi), ^ and (s) shall be subject to ratification/approval by the General Body of KCA at its next meeting, failing which the rules shall lapse.”

¶122

(emphasis supplied)

¶123

Thus the provisions contained in Clause 15(4)(s) provide for appropriate action if anybody acts against the interest of the KCA. The respondents do not have a case that any such action as provided in the aforesaid provision was taken and the same was brought to the notice of the 2^nd respondent as provided in those provisions under Clause 15.

¶124

The powers and functions of general body are provided in sub clause (3) and (4) of clause 5 as follows:

¶125

“5. (3). All powers of governance, management and decision – making shall vest in the General Body. In addition to the powers already given to the Apex Council, the Governing Council and the CEO under these Rules, the General Body may delegate such powers as it deems fit to any of them.

¶126

4. In addition to, and without prejudice to the generality of powers

¶127

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶128

¶129

vested in it, the General Body shall have the power:

¶130

a. To collect funds and wherever necessary borrow, with or without security for purposes of the KCA and to raise loans with or without security and to purchase, redeem or pay off any such security.

¶131

b. To frame the Laws of Cricket in Kerala and to make alterations, amendments or additions to the Laws of Cricket in Kerala whenever desirable or necessary.

¶132

c. To direct and control the Governing Council, to lend oversight and assistance to the KPL conducted by the Council and to ensure that the interests of the franchises and the players are protected.

¶133

d. To review any decision of the Apex Council or the Governing

¶134

Council .

¶135

e. Generally, to do all such other acts and things as may appear to the General Body to be expedient, convenient and/or conducive to the carrying out of the above functions of the KCA.

¶136

f. To take such action as it deems fit against a District Association including disaffiliation from the Association when the District Association does not abide by the rules and by-laws and the regulations concerning the function of the District Association. Any party aggrieved by an order passed under this rule may appeal to the ombudsman within 30 days of receipt of such order. “

¶137

emphasis supplied )

¶138

The respondents do not also say that there was any occasion for the apex body itself under clause 15 or for the general body under Clause 5 to take action against the petitioner. Moreover, it is the case of the 1^st respondent that a nominated member of the Apex Council does not have any say in the matter of governance. (Though no such provision in the memorandum of association was brought to the notice of this Court ). If they are not supposed to be involved in the governance there cannot be any objection as against the petitioner in prosecuting the case.

¶139

At any rate, in the absence of any provision in the memorandum of association or in the 1955 Act, which disqualifies a person like the petitioner from

¶140

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶141

¶142

becoming a member of the Apex Council during the pendency of cases filed against the KCA or for a member of apex council in prosecuting the cases already filed after becoming a member, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot continue to be the member of the apex council while prosecuting his Writ Petitions, provided, he is disassociating himself in the meetings in which the issues relating to those cases are dealt with and he is not interfering in any manner in defending those cases, by virtue of his membership in the Apex Council. Provisions are available in the memorandum of association for action against those acting against the interest of KCA. Therefore, if it is found that the petitioner is involved in any action against the interest of the KCA, appropriate action can be taken in accordance with those provisions.

¶143

None of the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel on either side relates to an issue similar to the one arising in this case. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Satyavart Sidhantalankar 's case (supra) as well as of this Court in Prem Kumar' s case ( supra ) are only to the effect that societies registered under similar or same Act are legal entities which can sue or be sued. The judgment in Rajan's case ( supra ) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents does not apply to the factual circumstances of this case. It was a case where the Writ Petition was filed by members of the managing committee against the resolution passed by majority of the very same committee. Moreover, there was no final conclusion.

¶144

At any rate, the petitioner shall be disassociated in any of the meetings

¶145

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶146

¶147

which considers matters relating to the issues involved in the Writ Petitions. Being a member of the Apex Council, it would only be a matter of self discipline that the petitioner does not interfere with any such matters directly or indirectly by virtue of his membership in the Apex Council.

¶148

Therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by the Ombudsman, that the petitioner shall not continue as a member of the apex council till the disposal of the Writ Petition, requires interference.

¶149

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶150

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶151

rtr/

¶152

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶153

¶154

APPENDIX

¶155

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶156

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE BYE-LAW	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE OF THE KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE SENT BY CRICKET	COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 10/10/2020 THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE INDIAN ERS ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE ISSUED TO THE P2.	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL BY THE INDIAN CRICKETERS ASSOCIATION 1ST RESPONDENT IN REPLY TO EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE SENT BY 2.	COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 01/11/2020 THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 AND
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE OF THE	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2020 SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE OF THE	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2020 SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶157

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶158

EXHIBIT R1(1)	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.3.2019 IN WPC-79/2019 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT R1(2)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE ELECTION OFFICER MR.SASIDHARAN NAIR (RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE AND FORMER CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF STATE OF KERALA) DATED 9.10.2019.
EXHIBIT R1(3)	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN CRICKETERS ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT R1(4)	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ICA GIVEN TO INSIDE SPORTS.COM ON 17.11.2020.
EXHIBIT R1(5)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OMEGA CRICKET CLUB DATED 20.07.2015 TO THE TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION.

¶159

W.P(c).No.28565/2020-U

¶160

¶161

EXHIBIT R1(6)	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS OF THE CLUB DATED 25.7.2015 TO THE TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT R1(7)	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS OF THE CLUB VIDE DATED 26.4.2017 TO THE TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT R1(8)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2019 IN O.A-2/2017 OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF THE KCA.
EXHIBIT R1(9)	A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.19249/2019 DATED 9.7.2019 WITHOUT EXHIBITS FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(10)	A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DECISION DATED 3.11.2020 OF THE APEX COUNCIL OF THE KCA.
EXHIBIT R1(11)	A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DECISION OF THE GENERAL BODY DATED 24.10.2020 OF THE KCA.

Sambasiva Sarma K. v. Kerala Cricket Association (Kca)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambasiva Sarma K. v. Kerala Cricket Association (Kca)

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

M.I.Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

S.Ambrose and Company, Vs the General Manager

M.P.Prasanna Kumar @ Prasannan Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

K.M.Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Kuriakose K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mathai Vs State of Kerala