Dismissed

Union Territory of pondicherry v. Union of India

Madras HC25 Jan 2022WP/330/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing the Amateur Kabaddi Federation to allow its players to compete. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the pendency of a civil suit challenging the petitioner's recognition, and granted liberty to approach the competent court regarding that suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to workout remedy before the competent Court where the suit regarding recognition is pending.

Union Territory of pondicherry Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.01.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.330 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.371 of 2022

¶6

Union Territory of Pondicherry Kabaddi Association (Reg.No.62/1973) Represented by its President, Mr.M.Shivakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Union of India, Rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Room No.401, C-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.

¶8

Sports Authority of India, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex (East Gate) Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

¶9

Amateur Kabadi Federation of India, Represented by its Administrator, E-386, Basement Cabin-B, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-110048.

¶10

The Registrar of Societies, No.35, First Floor Elango Nagar, III Cross Puducherry.

¶11

V. Chanemougame ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent herein to send an invitation to the association asking the association to send the Kabaddi players in the Union Territory of Pondicherry to enable them to participate in all level competitions as the association is the duly elected body for the Union Territory of Puducherry as they are affiliated with the 3^rd respondent under Rule 8.8 of Memorandum of Association of the 3^rd respondent.

¶13

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

¶14

For Petitioner

¶15

: Mr.R.Venkata Varathan

¶16

For Respondents R1 and R2

¶17

: Mr.N.Ramesh, Special Government Pleader

¶18

For Respondent R4

¶19

: Mr.C.T.Ramesh, Additional Government Pleader, Puducherry.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3^rd respondent to send an invitation to the association asking the association to enable the kabaddi players of Puducherry to participate in all level competitions.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that his association is affiliated with the 3^rd respondent/Amateur kabadi Federation of India, which is an official organisation having complete and sole charge of all forms of kabaddi and has full and complete jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the participation of Indian Kabaddi Teams in games under the patronage of IOC, OCA or their affiliate bodies. While so, in the month of December, 2021 and January, 2022, the 3^rd respondent decided to conduct kabbadi competition in Puducherry however, the petitioner association, being an affiliated association with the 3^rd respondent was not allowed to participate. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition has been filed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit in O.S.No.935 of 2018 is pending between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent association. He further submitted that, the petitioner also made a representation before the 4^th respondent for recognition of his association, however, no action has been taken on the said representation. Hence, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21709 of 2018 and the same is pending consideratio before this Court. In the mean while, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.12258 of 2018 filed by the petitioner came up for hearing on 21.08.2019 and on the same day, this Court directed the 4^th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation. However, till date the order of this Court has not been complied with.

¶24

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

¶25

Heard the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader and Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a dispute with regard to the recognition of the association in between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. Admittedly, regarding the same, the petitioner association has also filed a suit in O.S.No.935/2018 before the lower Court and the said suit is pending.

¶27

In view of the pendency of the suit, the consequential prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot not granted. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty granted to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent Court where the suit is pending.

¶28

Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

anu

¶34

¶35

Union of India,

¶36

Rep. by its Secretary,

¶37

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,

¶38

Room No.401, C-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,

¶39

New Delhi-110 001.

¶40

Sports Authority of India,

¶41

Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex (East Gate)

¶42

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

¶43

Amateur Kabadi Federation of India,

¶44

Represented by its Administrator,

¶45

E-386, Basement Cabin-B,

¶46

Greater Kailash Part-I,

¶47

New Delhi-110048.

¶48

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

¶49

The Registrar of Societies, No.35, First Floor Elango Nagar, III Cross Puducherry.

¶50

+1cc to Mr.R.Venkatavarathan, Advocate, S.R.No.4613 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.4966

¶51

W.P.No.330 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.371 of 2022

¶52

KV(CO) SU(28/02/2022)

¶53

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

Union Territory of pondicherry v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Territory of pondicherry v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Samboornam Vs The Commissioner of Police

Raj Kumar Vs The Director of Medical Education

Dr.T.D.Naidu Vs The Chief Secretary to Government

Ganesan Harinarayanan Vs Union of India

J.Prabhakaran Vs The Regional Passport Officer

M/s.Alamelu Transport Vs The Secretary to Government of tamil nadu