Disposed

Cpr Kabaddi Academy v. Sports Development Authority

Madras HC11 Sept 2014WP(MD)/13021/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madurai Bench, disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a ban on a Kabaddi Academy. Holding that the dispute arises between registered associations and must be adjudicated in an appropriate forum, the court accepted the argument that police could not prevent matches based on the association's ban. Connected matters were closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Cpr Kabaddi Academy Vs Sports Development Authority — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.09.2014 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.13021 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2014

¶5

CPR Kabaddi Academy rep.by it's Secretary R.M.Pyara Ramamoorthy 1/794-4, Raja Street Ayyappan Nagar, Thirupalai, Madurai-14 ... Petitioner vs. 1.Sports Development Authority rep.by it's Secretary 116A, Periyar E.V.R.High Road Nehru Park, Chennai 2.The Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India Aakansha, No.2, Ajameer Road Jaipur 3.Tamil Nadu Amateur Kabaddi Association No.455A, Kulikadu K.Chettipalayam Iyampalayam Road KMP Colony (PO) Tirupur-641 608 4.The Inspector General of Police Chennai 5.The Superintendent of Police Madurai 6.The Inspector of Police Y.Othakadai Police Station Madurai ... Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice, dated 19.12.2013, issued by the third respondent and quash the same and with a consequential direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct and participate the Kabaddi Sport event in the future.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mrs.Lakshmi Gopinathan For Respondents : Mr.I.Sathish for R1 R2 – No appearance Mr.R.Sadiq Raja for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar for R4 to R6

¶8

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶11

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified

¶12

mandamus to quash the notice, dated 19.12.2013, issued by the third respondent and to direct the respondents to permit him to conduct and participate in the Kabaddi Sport event in the future. By the said impugned notice, the third respondent banned the petitioner Kabaddi Academy from participating in Kabaddi matches.

¶13

Admittedly, the third respondent as well as the petitioner are registered associations and the petitioner has got a Kabaddi team and got players in their team. The third respondent is recognized by the first respondent Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. In this regard, the first respondent has given a written instruction, dated 08.09.2014, stating that based on the documents produced by the third respondent, the third respondent is recognized by the first respondent several years back and the associations, which are recognized by the first respondent are eligible to obtain grant from the first respondent for conducting National / State Championships and for enrolling the Tamil Nadu team in the National Championships. Further, it is stated that the State Association is functioning under the control of the Federation and similarly the District Association/Sports Body must be affiliated with the third respondent and the first respondent will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Association.

¶14

In the light of the above stand taken by the first respondent, it is clear that the third respondent has passed the impugned proceedings without the consent of the first respondent and it appears that the decision taken by the third respondent in their capacity of Sports Association to prevent the players of the petitioner Kabaddi team. Further, it is seen that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition and the same has to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Police preventing the petitioner Kabaddi team from participating in matches as there is a ban issued by the third respondent. If that be so, then the petitioner shall approach the appropriate forum for necessary relief as against the ban imposed by the third respondent. However, under the guise of impugned communication, the respondent Police namely respondents 5 and 6 cannot prevent the petitioner from organizing any matches, inviting matches and such other matters and it is open to them to do the same in their individual capacity.

¶16

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶18

\True copy\

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

To: 1.The Secretary, Sports Development Authority, 116A, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Nehru Park, Chennai.

¶23

2.The Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India, Aakansha, No.2, Ajameer Road, Jaipur.

¶24

3.Tamil Nadu Amateur Kabaddi Association, No.455A, Kulikadu, K.Chettipalayam, Iyampalayam Road, KMP Colony (PO), Tirupur-641 608.

¶25

4.The Inspector General of Police, Chennai.

¶26

5.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai.

¶27

6.The Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station, Madurai.

¶28

+1 CC TO M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS ADVOCATE, SR.NO.51581 +1 CC TO THE SPL.GOVT.PLEADER ADVOCATE, SR.NO.51564 +1 CC TO M/S.I.SATHISH, ADVOCATE, SR.NO.51628

¶29

+1 CC TO M/S.D.SADIQ RAJA, ADVOCATE, SR.NO.51460

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.13021 of 2014 and MP(MD).NO.1,2 & 3/2014

11.09.2014

KRK

NA/30/09/2014/P3/11C

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Cpr Kabaddi Academy v. Sports Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Cpr Kabaddi Academy v. Sports Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Ponnusamy, Vs the Registrar

M.Balamurugan Vs the Home Secretary

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Vs Director of Twon and Country

G. Chandran, Vs the District Collector

Seetha Vs the Special Thasildar

V.A. Zakir Hussain Vs the Tamil Nadu State Election