Dismissed

A.Prudhvishwar Reddy v. Sports Authority of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025WA/832/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the election of a General Secretary to the Telangana State Basketball Association, holding that the appellant was not a member of the Association and failed to establish standing as an aggrieved person.

What the court decided

AI extract

A.Prudhvishwar Reddy Vs Sports Authority of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

[^{3488 ]}

l I

I 1 ; l

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶5

IVIONDAY,^{THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRt APARESHKUMAR STNGH} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRiIiJSTICE G'M' MOHIUDDIN}

¶8

WRIT AP^{PEALNO:8320F 2025}

¶9

Writ Appeal^{underclause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order} dated^{20l06i2025in W P No 28798 of 2024 onthe file of the High Coutt'}

¶10

B"*"il;rrdhvishwa r Red dv'^{s/o A Ravind er^Reqokl:"i} ?% X;/tii^{/7""i' :3;X;} ;; ;,^"i ;;;;;;^u, _o q";fl Nagar,^{Byguda, Balkampet'} ",.^{fiill|?Io, Hyoeraudu-'ruwv o1 Bo"#l IvJ, i;,,n g,-n,b t,t.}

¶11

...A''ELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Soorts^{Authority of T-elangana' rep'. by its ViceChairman and Managing} EYrrlti"i^{i.e.Sta'dium,Basheerbigh' Hvderabad}

¶14

2 The Union^{of rndia,rvlinistry^of,,youthAffairs and sports Rep.By its principar} SeitJt'aw,^{S"cretariat,New Delhi}

¶15

J 11i33'"'3'aryHNo TSlATi,"f "',:x':,3t'i:ii,+A?'^i:i?lt"#,';:'riJ'[:Sffi

¶16

4 Normans-waroopr'?'":i/i;olui'"11;o*"["r"fn''3ftkon'f; J.""t--V":,"ti Y,?if"1i"?jflF,.:fl1"^{"J *;" iO .:;;I r"*n",..cotonv,} =ffi^{East Marrreparrv'} Secunderabad-500026

¶17

5 +:gl,%?l%"S,:x.;E1',-,ft',,.?,3'1,ff^{:T:1'1"**"8;o?Jod'3'F'""'oent10-3-67'}

¶18

6 Boon] OoJit''i',^F'*i:'':

¶19

Association,^{9-1-3B,Cellar} s ri^Vasa nt^{Kumal.'^} B"l'ilrLi'3n Ttilo "XJf,"J' Secunderabad^-500003

¶20

7 The Hvderabad^{District Association, represented} -rtrrn'"pallv, secunderabad-500026^{by its President,10-3-67'} i;"i d;."b;j;iv,^ri.i

...RESPONDENTS

18,. -.i!!-\ 7

IA NO: 'to F 202s

Petition under Section .,l5,| CpC prayin g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass direction against the respondent No.4 in prohibiting him from discharge his duties pending disposal of Appeal otherwise, the petitioner would be put to severe loss and hardship

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.GOVIND REDDy Counset for the Respondent No.1: SRI GUDI SATISH REODy, SC FOR SATG COUNSEI fOrthE RESPONdENT NO.2: ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

SRI BLE AND

¶27

TIIE HON' BLE^{SRI JU} STICEG .M.^MOHIUDDIN

¶28

WRIT No.8 32 ol²⁰²⁵

¶29

JUD^GM ENT:

¶30

Heald^{Sri M' GovinclReddy'leamed counsel for the} appellant^{and Perused the record'}

¶31

Short^{of unnecessarydetails'the presentwrit appeal is filed} b,v the^{*'rit petitioneraggrievedby the order of the learned Single} Judge,^{dated 20'06'2025 passed inWrit Petition vide} W.P.No.28798^{of 2024wherein the learned SingleJudge held inter} alia^{that theappellant/writpetitioner is not an aggrieved person and} negated^{the challenge to the electionof respondentNo'4as General} Secretary^{of respondentNo'3 i'e'' TelanganaState BasketBall} Association^{(for short'' Association')'}

¶32

W.P.No.28798^{of 2024} being 3. The^{aPPellant had filed} ol'^{respondentNo'lin} not aggrieved^{bY theactron} disqualif,ing/rejecting^{the nomination of respondentNo'4 for} election^{as GeneralSecretaryof the Association'}

i ; I I

I t I I I I I i

l j I I i I

The appellant also filed another Writ petition vide W.P.No.28797 of 2024 questioning rhe action olrespondent No.3_ Association, IN continuing respondent No.4 as its General Secretary, despite the fact that respondent No.4 was convictcd and sentenced in relation to offences committed under Section 420 of lndian l,enal Code, 1g60 and Secrions 13(l) and l-j(lXd) o1_the Prevention of Corruption AcL l9gg.

¶38

l'he leamed Singte Judge dismissed W.P.Nos"28797 and 28798 af 2024 by a common order.dated 20.06.2025 hol<Jing inrer ctlia thaL the appellant was not a person aggrieved inasmuch as he did not suffer any injury to his legar right or interest.

¶39

The appellant herein challenges the order oi the learned single Judge inter aria on the ground that the interest or the relevant community or the Societ y at large shall be adr.ersely affected if respondent No.4 is allowcd to conlinue as tite Sccretary of the Association. Fufther, it is the case of the appellant that respondent No.4 had misused the funds of the Association. The appellant further contends that respondent No.4 carries seal of

¶40

¶41

conviction^{notwithstandingthe suspensionof the sentence in the} criminal^aPPeal

¶42

1 ltisfurthercaseoftheappeltantthatthecriterionofan aggrieved Person^{runscontrary tothe doctrineof sufficient interest} at he^{was holding the Post of} to maintain^{a writ Petition;th} President^{of Warangal Basket Balt Association and that he has a} keen^{interest in the sport' whichthe learned SingleJudgeought to} have^{appreciatedand consideredthe fact that the continuation of} respondent^{No'4 as the Secretary of the Associationwould be} contrary^{to the sport ofBasket Ballat large'}

¶43

It^{is settled position of law that the concept of a person} aggrieved^{alone being ent'itledto seek redtessalunder the writ} jurisdiction^{has been well settled in a catenaof decisions of the} Ilon'ble^{SupremeCourt' ln the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoirv'} Collectort,^{the Hon'bleSupreme Court was pleasedto observe}

¶44

that:

¶45

Shri^{ChintamanRaghunath Gharat' ex-President v'asthe} complainant'^{thus,qt the} n'tost,^{he could leadevidence as a} witness.^{He could not claim the statusof an adversarialliligant} The^{comPlainantcannotbe thePartY to thelis. A lesg,I lJgUj;Jl4} itlemenl dr$t^{ns outof lawIn fact. it} is a bene averme^{nt ol en[}

i (20 t2) 4 scc 407

j 1 i I l

.: 'j. a

con erredu na erson the rule o law Thu.t Q rson wfut J rS mle li catl onl challen elhe act L)r omtsston. There may he some hor* * loss that may not be wro ng/ul in the eyc oJ'the lnv becquse ir m(r/ not result in injury to o legal right or legally, ?rotected interest of the complainant blt juridically harn of this tles-cripti on i.y called tlantnunt s,ine injuriu

¶51

59 7'he ul to h that he has been,le ived den ole he has to o ecl inl t e.lI In he o IC rm to lLarty in a 60. (iruter rhe garb ol beinPon9Cessar ) Party, a DErst l cannol persort be rmi ltat'ittg 0 ed lo ntremoteake a casetnteres[ connot trs that o be eneralpermitted blic b intu:rbecome CSI, Aa por\ in the li.s. as the person u,ho wqnts lo become u [;arty in a case, has to e"-tablish thal he has a proprietary ri.'ght u,hich hls been or is threatenecl to be violated, for the reason thal a legal tn1ury creutet a remedial right in the injured person. .7 person cannot be heurtl qs a party unle .ys he anstuers the tlescriplion ql' aggrieved Gentral of porty. lluhara:;htru (Virle [(1970)Adi pherozshah 2 SCC 484 Gandhi ; AIR 1g7t y. s(, ,lth,oca385lle ,lasbhni Motihhai Desoi v. Roshan Kumar [(l g7O t SC.C 671 AIR 1976 SC 578J . Maharaj Singh v. Stote of U.p. [( I 977) I .(I /ji AtR ts-6 S(. 26 021 Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [Q002) I SC:C 33J and Kabusltiki Kaishu '[oshibu :, Tosiba lppliunce.s Co. 1e008) t 0 SCC 766J ) The I Iig/t Courr .fuiled^to uppreciate thal it was a case of politicttl r.itulrv. The case o.f'the uppellanl lrus not been considered in tht: iorrecr persl)ecth.e dl all.

¶52

(emphask suppliett)

¶53

¶54

The Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt in Vinoy Kumarv' State of U'P'2 ' was}

¶55

pleased^{to holdas under:}

¶56

Generall!^{soeakinq' a nerson shollhaveno l'.ogus tlaltdi'!o {ile} a writ^{oetition if he is not oJrsonallvaffectedb.v the imousned} buqn dirn'.|.I'^u' TfriTirindo^tol 'isht'^hon' "ith" ,ishts brine^{inuo'Lnd o' his a;;e i} ""'t' haun .b'tnrylolotndthn ';;;fr;pti'obk un'\u' 'A'ti't-n²²⁶ "f 'uks:The^'"lief 'h" T#frffn^iTiion 'h'ⁿi"'" of o 'ish'^{i'. fo'ou' uf} perro, inroki,g^{the.iu'i'di'ti"oThn exception to the generalrule} rhe wrir^applied lbr^{is a writ of habeas} ;;i;;;, "h"re ';r;;;;, ;, ;r aruanto or filed in public interest tt is a matter^qf (t'\erit 'iuri\diclhn pntdence,^{thatlhe courtconJines the} "xe'cis" k)casesl,herelegalwrongorlegaliniuricsurc..,ouscdtoa oarticular^{person or his -/undamentil rights are violated'and not} ';';:;,;:;,,;";;;"s'of indi'iilut^{n"o'g o' injurvar the instance of} irra Orrr,^{where there is an effectivelegal aid} ^orgalti'ration Etten in^cases filed^{in public} which 'i:in;;r;st,^{con take care} th, court^{can of arcrcise} 'uch "os"'''^{the v)rit jurisdictionat the instance} 'rii" ir,r, party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or ii',ir)i^ti burden^{is threatenedandsuch person or} 'llegal tlelerminedclassoJpersonsis'byreasonofpovetly,helplessncss or disability^{or sociallyor econ'omically disadvantaged position'} unable^{to approachthecourtfor relief}

¶57

(emphasis^supptied)

¶58

Tlre Apex^{Court in S'P' Gupta v' (Jnion of India3'has heldas}

¶59

under:

¶60

-t"grt It may t rong^{therefore now} o,^{a l"gal be injury taken is as caused well established to a pe.rson that t'herc aot} ,to a cleterminate^{class olpersons by reason of violationo{ any} -ro,nrtitutionot or legal right or any burden is imposed in of any constitutional^{or legol provision or without}

¶61

-outnority "tru'r;r,**" irJ'to, or^{any suchlegalwrong or legal injury or illegal}

¶62

'^{(zoo t) a scc l:a}

¶63

3 I98l supp scc 87

¶64

¶65

burden is threatenerl and such person or determirute class of perso,s is by reason of poverty, helplessness o, OUrbrrrr, o, socially or economit a p p r o a c h t h e C o u r t ;::' :,i;;';::, ff: :, !,.'jj, ?; " ;,:; ::,,; maintuin an application fo, o, opproprior" iii,,,",,, order or writ in the l{igh Court unrte, Arrici ZZO ,ra if "rir" rt/ breach o/ ary. / ndamantul right o/.,such ,"rrr, o,r-irrnrir,nc,e clttss of. * " ; ; ::; "^{: :} "^{: r ::} r ji : ! ;:i :: { determinate i,'^{; ;:i} clus.;^: of^{: :} ; persons...^{; " :i}

¶66

(emphasit supplied)

¶67

The leamed counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance in Gorlde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Antthra pradeslt

¶68

¶69

'. 1,

¶70

. ..f' ,r't' a. t ..' \

¶71

qnd Othersa particularly para g, rvhich reads as under:

¶72

i",i#1';:r|';i!;"r,::,::!;'1"'^{the appettant had tocus standito} iite , ,7 c,r,;,y11;,i,.,:,;r",;;;';::;,i;::;,:: i:: :r{:,[:;.;;,,,,., rhis ('ourr i:'i::: : !:"if,;:'i 'n",^{q,i."i,in ;ri,i'i,"!,l,ii,' !r"xr::li,il:,:} Hieh (i,ttr. ,',1:;;'r";^{*tttu'nLtndcrAnic!e)26 of th( ('on.\titution} in rhc

¶73

""'l

¶74

fkts the appellunt .lile^the petition out of which rhe present appeal ha"- ar6en is the Presidenlo the Samithi o Dharm m v committee with the s o ti

'^AIR i966-sc 828

the^Prim LIealt^h coCcnntrib^reutlons The said om^committee the^{villacoersllected} or^Rs settifi^{l 0,000 and dePositedthe same} ttilh^{theBlock DeveloPmentOfficer.The apPellant rePresenledthe} llage^{in all its dealings withtheBlockDeveloPmentCommifiee and the} P anchaYtt^{t Samithiin the mattur of the locationof the Primary Health} Cenlre^{atDharmaj igudem' IIis conduct,the acquiescence onthe partof'} the other^{membersof the commiee,and the h'eatmenl meted} rence^{that oul he lo himu'as} supporl^{the infe} by^{theauthoritiesconcerned} authori^{,nrt ,o or, on behalf of the committee}

¶79

The^{said poftion of the judgment doesnot in anywayadvance the} cause^{of the aPPellant'}

¶80

t0.^{It is to be noted that the appellant/writ petitionerhas failedto} explain^{as to how his legal right or legal interest was inlringedand} also^{fa,ed to prove as to how he is aggrieved by the inaction of} respondent^{No'3-Association' of which the appellantis not a} member.^{The appellant thereforecannotbe allowedto meddlein} any^{proceeding unless he satisfiesthe requirement of beingan} aggrieved^{personwhose tegatright or interestis adversely affected'} Further,^{the appellant' tbr the reasons best known to him chosen to} file the^{present appeal only against the order passedin} W.P.No.2STS8of2024ignoringtheorderpassedinotherwrit petition^{vide W'P'No28797ol2024'}

¶81

I1. It is^{pertinentto notethat the TelanganaState Basket Ball} AssociationByeJawsdonotcontemplatedisqualificationof

¶82

¶83

¶84

respondent No.4 on the ground of conviction in a criminal offence or on the ground ofpendency ofa criminal offence.

¶85

The appellant has failed to make out any ground warranting the interference of this Court in the well reasoned order of the learned Sirrglc Judge.

¶86

Th.erefore, this Court is of the view of that the appellant not being a member of respondent No.3_Association ancl having failed to establish that he is an aggrieved person cannot be allowed to call in question the reasoneci order of the leamed Single Judge. .Ihe writ appeal is devoid of merit and is liable [o be dismissed.

¶87

14' Accordingly, the writ Appear is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶88

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶89

stand closed

¶90

SO.K.SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REG STRAR

¶91

//TRUE COPYII

¶92

sEc OFFICER