Dr. C.P. Joshi, President Vs the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 556/2019

¶3

In

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12961/2017

¶5

Dr. C.P. Joshi, President, Rajasthan Cricket Association, North Block, Sms Stadium, Jaipur.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan, Sahakar Bhawan, 22 Godown Circle, Jaipur.

¶9

Rajasthan Cricket Association, Through Its Joint Secretary Cum Officiating Secretary, Shri Mahendra Nahar, North Block, Sms Stadium.

¶10

The Ombudsman, Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra, D-78, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi.

¶11

The Ethics Officer, Mr. Justice Panna Chand Jain, Resident Of Mauzi Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶12

Rajendra Singh Nandhu, Hony. Secretary, Nagaur District Cricket Association (Suspended From Rca), Karni Colony, Nagaur.

¶13

Mahendra Nahar Son Of Late Shri Jeevan Singh Nahar, Aged About 53 Years, Joint Secretary Cum Officiating Secretary, Rajasthan Cricket Association, Sms Stadium, Jaipur.

¶14

Pinkesh Kumar Jain, Treasurer, Rajasthan Cricket Association, C/o Pragati Tower, Opposite Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pratapgarh.

¶15

Board Of Control For Cricket India (BCCI), 4Th Floor, Cricket Centre, Wandhede Stadium, D Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Through Its Secretary.

¶16

Respondents

¶17

Jaipur District Cricket Association, Through Its Secretary Mohd. Iqbal Aged 50 Year Son Of Shri Umar Daraz Khan, Resident Of 250, Jalupura, Jaipur.

¶18

Mohd. Iqbal Son Of Shri Umar Daraz Khan, Aged About 50 Years, Elected Vice President, Rajasthan Cricket Association, Resident Of 250, Jalupura, Jaipur.

¶19

(2 of 7)

¶20

[SAW-556/2019]

¶21

---- Proforma Respondents

¶22

For Appellant(s) :	Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sunita Pareek, Mr. Ashish Sharma, Mr. Deepak Sharma.
For Respondent(s) :	Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava and Ms. Sara Parveen; Mr. S.S. Hora; Dr. Abhinav Sharma; Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG; Mr. Angad Mirdha; Mr. Prateek Kasliwal with Ms. Supriya Saxena, for Respondent No. 9 and 10; Mr. Kartikya Sharma on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Taneja.

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶24

Judgment

¶25

01/04/2019

¶26

This is a hotly contested matter between different groups of Rajasthan Cricket Association (for short ‘the RCA’) who claim to represent it. The genesis of the dispute lies in the Tripartite Agreement executed between the Franchise, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short ‘the BCCI’) and the RCA. Clause 4.3 of the agreement provides that 15% of each category of tickets or otherwise as mutually agreed in writing shall be provided to the State Association and 5% to the BCCI. The dispute is about passes/tickets provided to the RCA. There are two groups, who claim to represent the RCA. The appellant claims himself to be the President of the RCA whereas the Respondent No. 5 as Secretary of the RCA and Respondent No. 7 as Treasurer of the RCA, on the other hand, represent to another group. Order

¶27

(3 of 7) [SAW-556/2019]

¶28

which is impugned in the present appeal has been passed by the learned Single Judge on 26.03.2019, directing that the arrangement made by the earlier order dated 11.05.2018 shall continue to operate in the IPL matches of this season as well.

¶29

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as also Mr. A. K. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Joint Secretary cum Officiating Secretary of the RCA, submitted that the impugned order could not have been passed in the face of the order of the Supreme Court dated 14.03.2019 in Board of Control for Cricket in India & Others Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others (Civil Appeal No. 4235/2014 with different Interim Applications and other connected matters), relevant part of which reads as under:

¶30

“By consent of all the parties, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae, is appointed by this Court to act as a Mediator in relation to any dispute that might arise in the instant interlocutory applications pending before us. Fee of the learned Mediator shall be paid by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

¶31

Till Mr. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae, submits a report, we consider it desirable that no Court/Tribunal in India shall entertain or proceed with any matter pertaining to BCCI or any State Cricket Association(s) involved.”

¶32

Their another objection to the impugned order is that no proper application giving details or the particulars as regards the Ranji Players and the Players, who represented Rajasthan in different domestic tournaments, representatives of the District Cricket Associations and Office Bearer of the RCA was made before the learned Single Judge. In fact, no application whatsoever was filed before the learned Single Judge and it was only on oral

¶33

(4 of 7)

¶34

[SAW-556/2019]

¶35

request without proper opportunity to other affected parties to contest the matter. Their further submission is that earlier order dated 11.05.2018 was passed in peculiar fact situation of that time when only one match remained to be played on 19.05.2018 and it was regarding that particular match that arrangement with regard to distribution of passes was made. It is also argued that the aforesaid dispute is outside the purview of the writ petition.

¶36

Mr. S. S. Hora and Dr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the scope of the writ petition was expanded earlier also by oral submission. Reference in particular has been made to orders dated 11.08.2017, 31.08.2017, 25.01.2018, 05.02.2018, 11.05.2018. Learned Single Judge was therefore perfectly justified in entertaining their prayer on oral request. Mr. S. S. Hora, learned counsel submitted that there was no dispute before the Supreme Court with regard to distribution of passes/tickets. Dispute before the Supreme Court with regard to which Mediator has been appointed was entirely different. Therefore, the restraint order passed by the Supreme Court would not apply to the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the RCA is given approximately 3000 passes/tickets and it is under obligation to distribute such passes/tickets to the rightful claimants, but 18 District Cricket Associations and the Secretary as also the Treasurer of the RCA are not being given a single pass. There are about 200 Ranji Players. Moreover, there are 2000 Players, who represented Rajasthan in different domestic tournaments. 30 passes are given to each of the District Cricket Association, out of which 18 Associations are having two factions. Learned counsel submitted that if this Court deems it appropriate,

¶37

(5 of 7) [SAW-556/2019]

¶38

the dispute pertaining to distribution of passes/tickets may be referred to Ombudsman.

¶39

Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of performa Respondent No. 9 and 10, who originally filed one of the two writ petitions in which impugned order has been passed, submitted that he sought permission of learned Single Judge to withdraw the writ petition, but his request has not even been noted in the impugned order. It is also his submission that attention of the learned Single Judge was invited to the order dated 14.03.2019 (supra) passed by the Supreme Court but no mention thereabout whatsoever has been made in the impugned order.

¶40

Mr. Angad Mirdha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BCCI also cited aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court and contended that one of the Interim Applications before the Supreme Court was filed by the RCA, which was listed in the Court when the aforesaid order was passed. This argument was specifically made before the learned Single Judge who has not at all taken note thereof in the impugned order. His further submission is that if there was any doubt regarding applicability of aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, appropriate course would have been to approach the Supreme Court for clarification of the order. It is also argued that no proper application was filed before the learned Single Judge, therefore, impugned order could not have been passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶41

Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not indicate any mention of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Supreme Court or whether or not

¶42

(6 of 7)

¶43

[SAW-556/2019]

¶44

aforesaid restraint order passed by the Supreme Court would be attracted in the present matter. No proper application was filed before the learned Single Judge giving all the aforementioned details with regard to passes/tickets to be distributed and as to who would be the rightful claimant to distribution of such passes. In fairness to the litigating parties, if the order of the Supreme Court was cited, learned Single Judge was expected to make a mention thereof in his order and come to a definite conclusion whether or not by virtue of aforesaid order, this Court would be precluded from considering the present dispute, especially keeping in view observation of the Supreme Court that, “no Court/Tribunal in India shall entertain or proceed with any matter pertaining to BCCI or any State Cricket Association(s) involved.” as according to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BCCI, one of the Interim Applications listed on that day before the Supreme Court was filed by the RCA itself. The question whether order dated 11.05.2018 was meant to be applied to a particular match which was scheduled to take place on 19.05.2018 by way of interim arrangement and whether such interim arrangement could have been perpetually applied to all the matches of Indian Premier League (IPL) of the current season, has not been elaborately considered and deliberated upon by the learned Single Judge. Whether or not the dispute in the present case could have been entertained in the scope of writ petition should also be dealt with by the learned Single Judge and while doing so, learned Single Judge should also consider whether on account of ongoing dispute between various factions of the RCA and the different District Cricket Associations, the matter could not be referred to

¶45

(7 of 7)

¶46

[SAW-556/2019]

¶47

Ombudsman. All these issues required a threadbare consideration. Besides, no properly constituted application was filed before the learned Single Judge so as to enable the opposite parties to contest the matter.

¶48

In view of above, we are not inclined to uphold the impugned order. However, it shall be open to any of the parties to file properly constituted application containing all the details, which shall be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge in the light of all the aforementioned arguments, including on the question about maintainability of the petition in view of the aforesaid order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Supreme Court.

¶49

Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations, however, without making any observation on merits of the case either way least it might prejudice case of either of the parties.

¶50

Application No. 24604/2019 and Stay Application No. 5603/2019 also stand disposed of.

¶51

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶52

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶53

Manoj/117

Dr. C.P. Joshi, President v. the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. C.P. Joshi, President v. the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Meena D/O Shri Shanti Ram Meena W/O Shri Shambhu Dayal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Kayyum Son of Shri Nathu Kan Vs Central Administrative Tribunal

Bhuvnesh Trivedi S/O Shri Bhagwati Prasad Sharma Vs Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur

Aam Janta Village Saroli Vs State of Rajasthan

Anirudh Rajpurohit Son of Shri Bhupendra Rajpurohit Vs Siddharth Mahajan

Smt Anita Jani W/O Navin Jain Vs Navin Jain S/O Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain