Allowed

Mohd. Azharuddin v. Mr. K. John Manoj

Telangana HC17 Aug 2021WA/300/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench set aside an interim order suspending the resolution of an Ombudsman from the Hyderabad Cricket Association. The court found the lower order lacked subjective satisfaction and prima facie reasons, necessitating a comprehensive hearing on the constitutional validity of allowing public law remedies in internal society appointments.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 04-07-2021 passed in IA No. 4 of 2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration.

Mohd. Azharuddin Vs Mr. K. John Manoj — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEA'RAJASHEKERREDDY}

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶7

WRIT APPEALNO:^{300 0F 2021}

¶8

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentappealprefeJredagainstthe orderdated 07lo7t2o21^{pasied in tA.No.4of 2021 inw.P No. 15310 of 202'.1 onthefile} of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

N/ohd. Azharuddin,^{S/o. Azizuddin,Aged ab^out 58 years'} -Rlo.^Flat^{No 305'} soriiiire Apartments,Einlaia^{niits, RoaiNo to' Hvderabad - 500034'}

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^{NO. 3}

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Ivlr. K. John Manoj,^{S/o K R Williams,} fged^{about 56,years'OccVice-} i;i".,0""i 500026 "t nbA: R/o.H.No.16-i-oos.^{er"tt L/anedpally' Secunderabad-}

¶14

.....RESPONDENT^/vRIT^PETITIONER

¶15

2.M/S.HvderabadCricketAssociation,RegisteredofficeatPlotNo.ltoS'Tarnaka,' i]'l,i,Jr'h"ii, r-rvo-".Jtjrir _ sno-osq Repr6sented by its secretary,11t..B, . Viff;;;',['s;i6.^{n. oivr"ii-olldeoJuout52 vedrs' R/o 1-8-815' Nallakunta'} Hyderabad^{- 44.}

¶16

Shri Deepak^{Verma, Former Judge of the SupremeCourt of lndia'Havingoffice} " ;i'ij-;9, 5td'itoor' citanjati EnclSve, New Delhi -1 10017'

¶17

tvlr. R. Viiavanand,^{S/o. R. Dayanand, Aged about52 years'Occ Secretary of} HCA, Fyo. i^{-e-et s, Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 44'}

¶18

Mr. Naresh^{sharma, s/o. Baldev Raj Sharma, Aged about 51 years, occ' Joint} " s;#iay ;f-HeA, ]i/;. -H.N;lb-s-J'3ort, East Ml-arredpallv' Secunderabad - 500026.

¶19

Smt. P. Anuradhd,^{W/o. P. Yadagiri, Aged} 3!9:190^{years' Occ' Councilor'} F/o. 3-4-86 I^{12, Barkatpura,HyderaDao- cuvuzt'}

¶20

Mr. Surender^{Kumar Agarwal,S/o Babulal Agarwal' Aged about 47 years'} ' o;.:i;;;;rieiot iCnl mo. i-z-so, Domalguda' Hvderabad - 28'

¶21

Station House^{Officer, Uppal, Hyderabad'}

¶22

Assistant^{Commissioner of Police, Uppal, Hyderabad'}

¶23

'10. Station House Officer, Begumpet,^Hyderabad'

¶24

1 l.Assistant^{Commissioner of Police, Begumpet' Hyderabad'}

¶25

'l2. Station House Officer, Gymkhana,^Hyderabad'

¶26

1 3. Assistant Commissioner^{of Police, Gymkhana' Hyderabad'}

¶27

(Respondent Nos.2^{to 13 are not necessary parties to this Appeal)}

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT^{NOS. 1, 2 & 4 TO 'I3}

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶30

Petition under section 151 cPC^{prayingthat in the circumstztncesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the orderof the learned^{singleJudge dated 07.07.2021in l.A.No.4of 2021} in W.P.No.'15310 ot 2021,^pending disposal^{of the Writ Appeal.}

¶31

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl.^{B. ADINARAYANARAO SENIOR COUNSEL}

¶32

FORSRI.GKDESHPANDE

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.^{1: SRI S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSELFOR} SRI. D. NARENDAR NAIK

¶34

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY}

¶36

¶37

THE HON'BLE^{DT.JUSTICESHAMEEMAKTHER}

¶38

WA NO. 300 ot²⁰²⁷

¶39

JUDGMENT::

¶40

This writ appeal^{is filed against the interim order passedin IA} No.4of2O2tinWPNo.l53l0of2o2lwherebyandWhereunderthe order dated O4-07-202t^{passedby the learned Ombudsmanwhoset} asidetheresolUtionpassedbyfivemembersoftheHyderabadCricket Association^{(HCA)purportedly resolvingto suspend the duly elected} PresidentandrestrainingthePresidentfromproceedingfUrtherinthe affairsoftheHCAhasbeenSuspendedbywayofaninterimorder. This writ appeal^{is filedby the 3'd respondent in the writ petition'}

¶41

Sri B. Adinarayana^{Rao,learned senior counsel appearingfor the} appellant^{submitsthat no reasons are given muchlessany satisfaction} recordedinpassingtheimpUgnedorderdespitethefactthattheissue involved various^{contentiousissues and the interim orderhas an effect} of allowing the^{writ petition itself, which itself is inviolation of} principles of natural^{justice. It is further statedthat the respondent-} writ^{petitioner is not entitled to seek relief in issues pertainto} appointment^{of Ombudsman,which involves questions of fact'} examining of^{materialfacts, in proceedingsunder Article 226 of fie} constitution^{of India;and the only remedy is by of proceedingsunder} Section^{23 of the Societies RegistrationAct before the civil Court'It is} also stated^{that the appointmentsto the post of Ombudsmanand} Ethics Officer^{under the Byelaws of the HCA are contractualin nature} and therefore^{recourse to public law remedy is impermissible and have} to bJre-dressed^{under commonlaw remedy' It is stated that earlier}

¶42

..\

¶43

¶44

this Court in CRP No.117 of 202, which was filed again:;t the order passed in IA N0.674 of2020 in PSROP No.17 of 2020 by the XXV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was allowed and the RSROP has been dismissed and the same has been challenged in the Supreme Court, but as on today, no interim order is granted against the very dismissal of the PRSROP No.17 of 2020 and all these aspects ought to have been considered by the learned single Judge before passing the interim order.

¶45

Sri S. Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1't respondent (writ petitioner) submits that under Byelaw 4O (1) of the HCA, there is a requirement of appointment of an Omb.rdsman and under Bylaw 39 (1) there is also a requirement of appoirtment of an Ethics officer and in spite of being informed that a retired chief lustice and a retired Judge of this Court are appointed as Ombudsman and Ethics Officer respectively, the Ombudsman appointed by the appellant chosen to issue show cause notices to the members whc are against his decisions, though his candidature was rejected the Anrual General Body meeting of the HCA. Learned counsel, however, Fairly concedes that two groups are functioning in their own style nullifyin,l the actions of the other group. Learned senior counsel does not dispute that the impugned order hardly reflect any reasons. He also subrnits that the ombudsman has no power to suspend the members and it is onry the Apex Council which has got the power to do so as per By,e_law 41 (c) of the Bye-laws

¶46

After hearing both the learned senior counsel ard taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that: the matter requires comprehensive hearing and consideration of all the contentious issues raised, including prima facie case, balance of

,/./

convenience and irreparable loss to grant or reFuse to grant the interim order' The impugned interim order does not refrect prima facie reasons, therefore, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded For Fresh consideration.

¶51

Learned senior counser for the parties expressed readiness and pleaded for early hearing in view of the urgency invorved in the matter, hence we request the learned single Judge to take up the matter for hearing on 23-08-2021 in view of the urgency pleaded in the matter. It is needles to observe that the League matches as to the game of cricket by the different teams, as per the schedules fixed and approved earlier, shall go on. pending disposal of the IAs before the learned single Judge, the Apex Council shall not take any decisions.

¶52

The writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand disposed of. There shall no order as to costs.

¶53

SD/- C.V.MALLIKARJUNA VARMA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Qo SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55