Judgment :- Challenging the order of the third respondent dated 11.1.2010 in so far as it grants affiliation for the State of Tamilnadu to the sixth respondent and consequently directing respondents 3 and 4 to grant affiliation to the second petitioner association as the successor-in-interest of the first petitioner association, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners as could be seen from the affidavit in support of the writ petition, in nutshell, is set out here under:- (a) The first petitioner association is a society registered on 29.1.1988 under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and it is an active society filing the returns and functioning as per law. It has successfully hosted the test matches with Pakistan, Germany, Poland, Belgium and prestigious tournaments such as the Champion Trophy and the Asia Cup. (b) The second petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1975 in compliance with the directions of respondents 2 and 3 and is a successor-in-interest of the first petitioner being the body that takes over the entire affairs of the first petitioner. (c) The first respondent governs the development of all sporting activities in India. The second respondent is the national body that is affiliated to the International Olympic Association and it controls all sporting activities in India and it is the body that provides recognition to the national level sports authorities. The second respondent receives grants from the first respondent and distributes it to the State Olympic Associations and the Sports Development located in each State. It is therefore a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as it performs public function with Government funds. (d) The third respondent as on date is the body that is seeking to control the national game of hockey in India. It has been accorded provisional recognition by the International Hockey Federation (FIH), the body that governs the sport of hockey internationally. The fourth respondent is one of the accredited members of the second respondent and is governed by its constitution. All state level sports associations which administer various sports in Tamilnadu are all members of the fourth respondent. Similarly, the first petitioner association is an accredited member of the fourth respondent. However, all these associations including the first petitioner are independent authorities and the fourth respondent has no power or authority to interfere with their affairs. All state level sports associations which administer various sports in Tamilnadu are all members of the fourth respondent. Similarly, the first petitioner association is an accredited member of the fourth respondent. However, all these associations including the first petitioner are independent authorities and the fourth respondent has no power or authority to interfere with their affairs. (e) The first petitioner association is the only body that is affiliated to the fourth respondent and hence it is the only body that governs the game of hockey in Tamilnadu. The game of women’s hockey was governed by the ‘TN Women’s Hockey Association’. Even at the national level, India had a separate men’s body and a separate women’s body for controlling the game of hockey. (f) In March 2009, the International Hockey Federation directed all the member countries to have one body that governs men’s and women’s hockey in that country and required India also to fall in line and form one unified association. It was expected that the Indian Hockey Federation and the Women’s Hockey Federation would merge to form one organization at the national level, but, however, the second respondent arbitrarily proceeded to disaffiliate both the associations and set up a new association viz., Hockey India, the third respondent herein. Informing the same to all the State Olympic Associations, the second respondent directed them to set up a single body on the ‘One Game – One body’ principle. (g) In the year 2008, the first petitioner association discovered that its treasurer one Chelladurai Abdullah had mismanaged its affairs and failed to maintain proper accounts for the association. Hence he was removed from the office. Irked by the same, the said Chelladurai Abdullah attempted to set up a parallel controlling committee for the first petitioner. This has constrained the first petitioner association to file a suit before this Court in C.S.No.1007 of 2008 for an injunction restraining him from interfering with the affairs of the first petitioner association. This Court, by an order dated 24.10.2008, granted temporary injunction and the said order was made absolute on 23.11.2008. (h) Meanwhile, the said Chelladurai Abdullah started using third parties as a means to gain control over the first petitioner association and the game of hockey in Tamilnadu. This Court, by an order dated 24.10.2008, granted temporary injunction and the said order was made absolute on 23.11.2008. (h) Meanwhile, the said Chelladurai Abdullah started using third parties as a means to gain control over the first petitioner association and the game of hockey in Tamilnadu. The first petitioner association has reliably learnt that under the directions of the said Chelladurai Abdullah, the fourth respondent also sought to take over control of the affairs of the sport in Tamilnadu. In December, 2008, the fourth respondent appointed an Adhoc committee to take over the control of the affairs of the first petitioner association. Immediately, W.P.No.6614 of 2009 was filed challenging the appointment of such committee and this Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim stay of the actions initiated by the said committee. Subsequently, the fourth respondent withdrew the appointment of the said committee. (i) While these events had transpired at the state level, on the national level, the second respondent had directed the State Olympic Associations to form a single body to govern the game of hockey in each state. At the national level, the formation of Hockey of India was arbitrary and undemocratic. The appropriate process would have been to call for the existing men’s and women’s associations to merge into one unified body. Instead, the second respondent highhandedly disaffiliated the existing bodies and registered a new body. The existing affiliated state units had to seek affiliation all over again with the third respondent despite already being affiliated units. (j) The first respondent had made it abundantly clear that the third respondent was only a temporary body to remain in existence only till the completion of the election process. Consequently, all the existing state units, despite already being affiliated to the erstwhile Indian Hockey Federation, applied afresh for affiliation to the third respondent. In June 2009, the first respondent association formed a new body ‘Hockey Tamilnadu’, the second petitioner herein and registered the same as a society. It also started the process of transfer of its entire operations to the new body. (k) The said Chelladurai Abdullah once again attempted to exploit the situation by creating parallel body viz., ‘Unified Hockey Tamilnadu’. He falsely proclaimed that this ‘Unified Hockey Tamilnadu’ was the body formed by unification of the women’s body with the first petitioner association. It also started the process of transfer of its entire operations to the new body. (k) The said Chelladurai Abdullah once again attempted to exploit the situation by creating parallel body viz., ‘Unified Hockey Tamilnadu’. He falsely proclaimed that this ‘Unified Hockey Tamilnadu’ was the body formed by unification of the women’s body with the first petitioner association. For the best known, the fourth respondent appeared to be encouraging the said Chelladurai Abdullah and in fact, it set up a committee to inquire as to which association was the true body. The petitioners issued a notice dated 15.8.2009 protesting the so called enquiry. Such conduct was in clear violation of the order of this Court made in C.S.No.1007 of 2008. (l) Incidentally, the fourth respondent responded to the petitioners’ notice vide letter dated 21.8.2009 stating that there was no inquiry committee. Meanwhile, even the first respondent wrote to all State Governments and the State Sports Development Authorities vide letter dated 2.10.2009 and requested them to take steps to ensure that the process of creation of unified bodies at the State level is fair and transparent. Despite the specific directions of the first respondent, respondents 4 and 5 have grossly failed to conduct any proper, fair and transparent affiliation process. The petitioners addressed various letters to respondents 1 to 4 to provide the information on the affiliation process, but, till date there is no response for the same. On the other hand, the petitioners have learnt from newspaper reports that the fourth respondent has been entrusted with the task of recommending names of units to be affiliated. (m) Pursuant to the petitioners’ various letter, the fourth respondent issued an undated letter calling them to produce a list of their members to determine which of them was the true hockey association. The petitioners promptly issued a response clarifying that Hockey Tamilnadu was none other than the successor of the first petitioner association which is the only affiliated body in Tamilnadu. The first petitioner association was the only affiliated body and also the only qualified body to be granted affiliation afresh. Meanwhile, on 16.11.2009, the second petitioner received a letter from the fourth respondent calling for a meeting and the petitioners’ General Secretary attended the meeting, wherein the fourth respondent had expressed that there was no time to conduct a proper inquiry. Meanwhile, on 16.11.2009, the second petitioner received a letter from the fourth respondent calling for a meeting and the petitioners’ General Secretary attended the meeting, wherein the fourth respondent had expressed that there was no time to conduct a proper inquiry. (n) Meanwhile, the third respondent announced its decision to conduct general body elections on 29.1.2010 and declared 20.1.2010 as the last date for nominations. Since the affiliation process had met with severe criticism and roadblocks in several states, the elections were re-scheduled to 7.2.2010. However, the petitioners learnt that on 11.1.2010, the third respondent conducted a meeting of its office bearers/members at Delhi and granted affiliation to 30 state units and 4 institutions. The petitioners had not receive any official communication on the affiliation process and were surprised to find the name of Tamilnadu in the list of States granted affiliation. The fourth respondent had not recommended affiliation to the petitioners. Instead, in a wholly highhanded manner, it had recommended affiliation to a completely new body viz., ‘Hockey Unit of Tamilnadu’, the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent is a non-existent society and a creation of the fourth respondent. The respondents 2, 3 and 4 have failed to comply with the direction of respondents 2 and 5 to the effect that the affiliation process must be fair and democratic. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, wherein the following facts have been set out:- (a) Respondents 2 to 5 are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is not correct to state that the respondents fall within the meaning of State and therefore, under Article 12 of the Constitution, the writ petition is maintainable. None of respondents 2 to 6 has been created by a statue. No part of the share capital of the respondents is held by the Government. Practically, no financial assistance is given by the Government to meet the whole or entire expenditure of these respondents societies. (b) The Tamilnadu Olympic Association is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is governed by its constitution. All the state sports association are members of the Tamilnadu Olympic Association (TCOA). It does not get any grant or aid from the Government of Tamilnadu or the Indian Olympic Association. (b) The Tamilnadu Olympic Association is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is governed by its constitution. All the state sports association are members of the Tamilnadu Olympic Association (TCOA). It does not get any grant or aid from the Government of Tamilnadu or the Indian Olympic Association. Further, it controls the overall affairs of the sports in the State. Under the Constitution, TCOA has wide power to interfere and resolve the disputes arising among its member or their units. Under Rule 18 of the Constitution, the TCOA can arbitrate the dispute and resolve the same. (c) Originally, there was an association viz., Hockey Federation of India and it was governing entire affairs of hockey in the country and all the State Units are its members. Insofar as State of Tamilnadu is concerned, the unit which represented the State was the Tamilnadu Hockey Association. All the District Associations are its members and the said association is considered to be the parent body for hockey Tamilnadu. All Championship matches in the District Level are conducted by the Tamilnadu Hockey Association and for any interstate championship, the team and players are sponsored through the said association to represent Tamilnadu. (d) One Jothikumaran was the Secretary of the Indian Hockey Federation. In April, 2008, on account of corruption charges, he was forced to resign from the post and subsequently, the said association was also disaffiliated from the Indian Olympic Association. In order to conduct National Level Championships and participate in the International Competition, the Hockey India, the third respondent was formed. In order to regulate the sport, in August 2009, the third respondent sent a letter to the Indian Olympic Association requesting them to take necessary action in each State in forming a new unit consisting of both men and women to represent as a single unit. By virtue of the same, the third respondent had disaffiliated all the existing State units and called for fresh registration as per the terms. The fifth respondent had in turn requested to adhere to the norms laid down in the Hockey India and form an unified unit to represent the State of Tamilnadu. (e) In the meantime, they have received several complaints from the various District Hockey Associations about the ineffective administration and activities in the Tamilnadu Hockey Association. It was informed that Jothikumaran had removed one Challadurai. (e) In the meantime, they have received several complaints from the various District Hockey Associations about the ineffective administration and activities in the Tamilnadu Hockey Association. It was informed that Jothikumaran had removed one Challadurai. Abdullah, who was the treasurer of the association. Aggrieved over the same, the said Chelladurai Abdullah has filed a suit before this Court in C.S.No.721 of 2008 to declare his removal as null and void. The said Jothikumaran has also filed a suit in C.S.No.1004 of 2008 before this Court for permanent injunction restraining the said Chelladurai Abdullah from interfering with the affairs of the Tamilnadu Hockey Association and obtained interim orders. Both the suits are pending. It is a matter of record that pending these litigations, the ultimate sufferers are the members and the players. From the year 2006, there has been no state activity in the Tamilnadu Hockey Association and all the members / District units had represented to the fourth respondent to interfere and protect the players and the game hockey. (f) As per Rule 18 of their constitution, they were empowered to form committees or sub committees and delegate / assign duties in order to fulfil the objects. Accordingly, in order to protect the game hockey, they had decided to form a sub committee consisting of Olympians and Senior Hockey Players. Thereafter, the Tamilnadu Olympic Association took several measures / steps to resolve the disputes. In the meantime, they have received a communication from the Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu, for forming both men and women as a single unit in a state. By the circular, the Hockey Indian has disaffiliated all the existing members / associations and had called upon to form a single unit. (g) The said Jothikumaran had formed another association viz., the Hockey Tamilnadu as per the guidelines of the Hockey India and had directly applied to them and sought for recognition. Since there was dispute in the Tamilnadu Hockey Association alone and that the two groups have formed separate units consisting of both men and women, in order to find out the strength of each group, the fourth respondent called upon them to submit their list of members. On receipt of said notice, only the unified Hockey Assign alone submitted their list of members, but the said Jothikumaran did not choose to submit his list of members. On receipt of said notice, only the unified Hockey Assign alone submitted their list of members, but the said Jothikumaran did not choose to submit his list of members. (h) Under those circumstances, the Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu wrote to the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent should forward the names of the office bearers of the newly formed unit and seek for affiliation with the Hockey India so as to enable them to represent the State of Tamilnadu and cast their vote in the ensuring elections which was fixed at 7.2.2010. Unfortunately, the said letter reached only 19.12.2009. At the time, the General Secretary of the Tamilnadu Olympic Association had to leave the country and hence he requested two vice presidents viz., V.C. Devaram and V. Ramachandran to forward the names for affiliation. Since time was very short, the two vice presidents called upon all the members of the Hockey Associations and proposed three common names to form the unified unit. Accordingly, all the district units have unanimously elected / nominated N.K. Radhakrishnan as the President, Renuka Lakshmi as the Secretary and Abdul Khadher as the Treasurer thus forming a new unit viz., the Hockey Unit of Tamil Nadu. It is also pertinent to state that the said N.K. Radhakrishnan was the senior vice President and co-opted President of the Tamilnadu Hockey Association, the first petitioner herein, the unit belonging to Jothikumaran and the said Renuka Lakshmi, the Secretary of the Indian Women Hockey Association and also presently the Associate Secretary of Indian Women Hockey Association and P. Khader Moheedin belonged to the Unified Tamilnadu Hockey Association. Thus, it was construed by the Tamilnadu Olympic Association that the representatives elected by them would cover all the groups that the unanimous decision was accepted and agreed to be forwarded to the Hockey India. (i) The newly elected members have also prepared the bylaws and all other formalities also have been complied with. The newly formed unit has been formed and elected by all the District Units of various Hockey Association. The decision only has been forwarded by the fourth respondent to the Hockey India and they have all records to substantiate these facts. The petitioners knowing fully well of the events, have deliberately, in order to cause prejudice, suppressed these facts and come before this Court. The decision only has been forwarded by the fourth respondent to the Hockey India and they have all records to substantiate these facts. The petitioners knowing fully well of the events, have deliberately, in order to cause prejudice, suppressed these facts and come before this Court. The Olympic Association does not have any personal interest against any of the factions of the Hockey units. The sole intention is to protect the interest and welfare of the players and the game hockey. (j) It is very curious that the said Jothikumaran in his affidavit has falsely alleged that he had formed the new unit consisting of both men and women and the Women Hockey Association of Tamilnadu is also merged with the said unit. The Women Hockey Association has not merged with his unit. It is settled law that two societies / associations cannot merge with each other without the consent of the members of those associations and without necessary resolutions. The first petitioner having been declared as a defunct association cannot be administered by the second petitioner nor it could be contended that it has taken over the first petitioner. Under the constitution of the fourth respondent, it is empowered to interfere when there is a dispute in a member association. It has ample power to resolve and arbitrate and at time, even appoint committees to protect the interest and welfare of the sports and its participants. (k) Since the fourth respondent was represented by various District Hockey Units that the first petitioner association is not effectively functioning and that the General Secretary has been unilaterally taking decisions without considering the interest and welfare of its members and in order to protect the game / sport and the players, the fourth respondent formed the adhoc committee. The fourth respondent had never attempted to support any group in the Hockey Association as alleged. Since it was brought to their notice about the disputes, they had only attempted to resole the same. They were directed to form an unified body in the State consisting of both men and women and hence, they earnestly took steps to arrive at a consensus and settle the issues in the first petitioner association. The General Secretary has never cooperated with the fourth respondent to resole the issues. (l) The second petitioners did not give any list of its members. The General Secretary has never cooperated with the fourth respondent to resole the issues. (l) The second petitioners did not give any list of its members. On the contrary, it has directly applied to the third respondent for recognition. In the meantime, since all the majority members of the District Units had unanimously resolved and formed the Hockey unit of Tamilnadu and recommended the names of the office bearers, the sixth respondent herein, they had forwarded the same after due verification of the correctness of their strength. There are 32 registered District Associations which were affiliated with the first petitioner and subsequently, about 28 of the District Units have given their consent to form the sixth respondent unit to represent the unified body. As per their request and after verifying the same, the list was forwarded to the third respondent. Though notice has been given on 16.11.2009 calling upon the petitioners to submit their list of members, they had not participated, but left abruptly for obvious reasons. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the sixth respondent, wherein the following facts have been set out:- (a) The writ petition is not maintainable against respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6 as they are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. Sport bodies including respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6 will not fall within the definition of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 and therefore they are not ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12. The inter se affiliation rights between the petitioners association and the sixth respondent involves disputed question of law which cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no fundamental right or constitutional right that has been infringed calling for interference by this Court. In order to establish the personal rights of certain individuals of the petitioner, this Court cannot be used as a forum to adjudicate the same. (b) In view of the requirement of the International Hockey Federation to have a common entity dealing with both men and women Hockey, the third respondent Hockey India came to be registered. Women’s Hockey in Tamilnadu was governed through the Tamilnadu Women’s Hockey Association which was affiliated to the All India Women’s Hockey Association. (b) In view of the requirement of the International Hockey Federation to have a common entity dealing with both men and women Hockey, the third respondent Hockey India came to be registered. Women’s Hockey in Tamilnadu was governed through the Tamilnadu Women’s Hockey Association which was affiliated to the All India Women’s Hockey Association. After formation of the third respondent Hockey India, the All India Women’s Hockey Association has merged with the third respondent Hockey India. In view of the merger at the National Level at Delhi, it also required State Associations to form a common association and hence, various meetings were held between the Tamil Nadu Hockey Association and Tamil Nadu Women’s Hockey Association. Pursuant to the said meetings, it was decided that a common association would be registered to operate in the name and style of the sixth respondent and N.R. Radhakrishnan and Renuka were nominated as the President and Secretary of the Hockey unit of Tamil Nadu to represent both men and women hockey of Tamil Nadu by the fourth respondent. In other words, the first petitioner had combined together with the Women’s Hockey Association and the sixth respondent came to be formed out of the above arrangement. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The first and foremost submission that requires consideration is whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. It is contended by the respondents that the respondents 2, 3, 4 & 6 have been registered under the Societies Registration Act and the same will not fall within the definition of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12. Therefore, they are not ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6.1. On the contrary, it has been contended on the side of the petitioners that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 will fall under the category of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If the respondents are financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, then it is a ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. If the respondents are financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, then it is a ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. Since, the respondents 2, 3 and 4 are financially, functionally and administratively controlled by the Government of India, the first respondent herein, they shall be ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6.2. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in ( 2005 (4) SCC 649 ), Zee Telefilms Ltd., and Another vs. Union of India and others. In the said decision, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that whether a body is state or not depends whether it is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Any control exercised by the Government is not pervasive and merely regulatory in nature. A state body would not come under the extended meaning of the term ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 and the writ petition will not lie against the said body. 6.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that even if the respondents are not a ‘State’, they have to act fairly and in good faith. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in ( 2005 (4) SCC 741 ), Board of Control of Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others. Paragraph 81 of the said judgment on which much reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is usefully extracted here under: “81. In law, there cannot be any dispute that having regard to the enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow the doctrine of “fairness” and “good faith” in all its activities. Having regard to the fact that it has to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of millions, it has a duty to act reasonably. It cannot act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously. As the Board controls the profession of cricketers its actions are required to be judged and viewed by higher standards.” 6.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on the Revised Guidelines for Assistance to National Sports Federations (NFS) of the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports dated 14.08.2001. As the Board controls the profession of cricketers its actions are required to be judged and viewed by higher standards.” 6.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on the Revised Guidelines for Assistance to National Sports Federations (NFS) of the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports dated 14.08.2001. By taking me to the various guidelines, the learned counsel placed emphasis on the fact that the Government is financially helping the respondents. 6.5. Thus, the sum and substance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 will fall under the category of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7.1. On the contrary, by relying on the same judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners viz., (2005) 4 SCC 649 ), Zee Telefilms Ltd., and Another vs. Union of India and Others, Mr. R. Muthukumarsamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent contended that the sixth respondent cannot be considered as ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12 and added that the writ petition against the sixth respondent is liable to be dismissed and it is not maintainable. Paragraph 34 of the judgment relied on the by the learned Senior Counsel is usefully extracted here under: “34. At this stage, it is relevant to note another contention of Mr. Venugopal that the effect of treating the Board as State will have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as nearly 64 other National Sports Federations as well as some other bodies which represent India in the international forum in the field of art, culture, beauty pageants, cultural activities, music and dance, science and technology or other such competitions will also have to be treated as a “State” within the meaning of Article 12, opening the floodgates of litigation under Article 32. We do find sufficient force in this argument. Many of the abovementioned federations or bodies do discharge functions and/or exercise powers which if not identical are at least similar to the functions discharged by the Board. Many of the sportspersons and others who represent their respective bodies make a livelihood out of it (for e.g. Football, tennis, golf, beauty pageants, etc.). Many of the abovementioned federations or bodies do discharge functions and/or exercise powers which if not identical are at least similar to the functions discharged by the Board. Many of the sportspersons and others who represent their respective bodies make a livelihood out of it (for e.g. Football, tennis, golf, beauty pageants, etc.). Therefore, if the Board which controls the game of cricket is to be held to be a State for the purpose of Article 12, there is absolutely no reason why other similarly placed bodies should not be treated as a State. The fact that the game of cricket is very popular in India also cannot be a ground to differentiate these bodies from the Board. Any such differentiation dependent upon popularity, finances and public opinion of the body concerned would definitely violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as any discrimination to be valid must be based on hard facts and not mere surmises. (See State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana). Therefore, the Board in this case cannot be singly identified as an “other authority” for the purpose of Article 12. In our opinion, for the reasons stated above none of the other federations or bodies referred to hereinabove including the Board can be considered as a “State” for the purpose of Article 12.” 7.2. Yet another decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent is reported in ( 2007 (15) SCC 136 , Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Others vs. V.K. Sodhi and others. In the said decision, the question that arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the State Counsel of Education, Research and Training (SCERT) would come under the category of “Other Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore subject to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that once if finance are made available to it by the Government, administration of its finances are left to SCERT and there is no further Government control, the SCERT may not be “state” or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that very formation of independent society under the Societies Registration Act would also suggest that the intention was not to make the body a mere appendage of the state. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that very formation of independent society under the Societies Registration Act would also suggest that the intention was not to make the body a mere appendage of the state. Thus, finally the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that SCERT is not amenable to the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent also drawn my attention to the Memorandum of Association of the third respondent. It contains who are all the Government body. No Government officials have been named there under. By relying on the rules and regulations of the third respondent, the learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the third respondent is not “State” or “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. That apart, he has pointed out that one of source of income for the third respondent is aid / grants from Government / Semi-Government etc., Hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, the source of income for the third respondent is not financed by the Government alone. 7.4. Thus, summing up his arguments the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent contended that the third respondent is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence the decision of the third respondent cannot be questioned by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have carefully considered the said submissions made by the either side. 9. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2010, in so far as granting affiliation to the sixth respondent and consequently directing third and fourth respondents to grant affiliation to the second petitioner association as the successor-in-interest of the first petitioner association. Thus, relief has been sought for against the third and the fourth respondents and no relief has been sought for against the first respondent. Hence, even though The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports is the first respondent, no relief is claimed against the first respondent. Thus, relief has been sought for against the third and the fourth respondents and no relief has been sought for against the first respondent. Hence, even though The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports is the first respondent, no relief is claimed against the first respondent. Merely because the Union of India has been made as the first respondent, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition, if the writ petition against the respondents 3 and 4 are not maintainable. Thus, I am of the considered view, merely because the Union of India is a party respondent, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition, unless otherwise the claim against the respondents 3 and 4 are instrumentality of the State and the petitioners have to establish that the claim against the respondents 3 and 4 are maintainable. 10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners can maintain the present writ petition against the respondents 3 and 4. It is contended on the side of the respondents that respondents 2, 3 and 4 are not instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They will also not come under the category of ‘other authorities’ enumerated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. While so, it is contended on the side of the petitioners that the respondents 2, 3 and 4 will fall under the category of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since they are financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under control of the Government, the writ petition will lie against them. 11. To substantiate that the Central Government has got operational control over the third respondent, the following contentions have been put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. (a) The Central Government have issued guidelines for National Sports Federations, such as Hockey India. The annexures therein show deep and pervasive operational control of the third respondents. (b) The Central Government has appointed a “Government Observer” to monitor the operations of National Federation i.e., Hockey India. (c) The Central Government is directly involved in the election process of Hockey India and has appointed an election observer. (d) The Central Government has issued guidelines to Hockey India on the process for conducting elections. (b) The Central Government has appointed a “Government Observer” to monitor the operations of National Federation i.e., Hockey India. (c) The Central Government is directly involved in the election process of Hockey India and has appointed an election observer. (d) The Central Government has issued guidelines to Hockey India on the process for conducting elections. (e) The Government Observer for the elections prescribes the procedure to be followed by Hockey India for conducting its elections. (f) The Government has also directed the Hockey India to appoint a retired High Court Judge as its elections observer. (g) Hockey India’s election agenda clearly shows that the agenda was sent to the Ministry of Sports and Government appointed observer. 12. To substantiate that the Central Government has got financial control, the following facts were brought before this Court. (a) Flow of funds from the Government could be seen from the Government guidelines for National Federation. 13. To substantiate that the Central Government has got functional control over the third respondent, the following fats were brought to the notice of this Court. (a) When National Federation sends players abroad, they seek prior approval from the Central Government. (b) Selection of the National team is done under the supervision of the Government Observer. 14. On the other hand, it is contended on the side of the respondents that the constitution of the Board of the third respondent, Hockey India comprises of individual members with no Government participation. Financial support is from various sources, one among them being a source from the Government. No functional control under any circumstances. 15. Under the bylaws of the second petitioner all disputes arising between the members / association are to be resolved by arbitration only. 16. I have carefully considered the said submission made by both the parties. (a) The Central Government has appointed Government observer to monitor the operation of the National Federation (i.e.,) Hockey India. The letter dated 23.04.2008 of the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, addressed to various sports authorities reads as follows: “In partial modification of the earlier Order of this Ministry dated 7th February, 2008 on the above mentioned subject, Shri Ajit Pal Singh and Shri Zafar Iqbal are hereby appointed as Government Observers in the discipline of Hockey(Men). Smt. Roopa Saini, will continue to be the Government Observer for Hockey (Women).” (b) The letter dated 01.10.2009 of the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports, New Delhi addressed to all Sports Secretaries of States will disclose that the ministry has appointed one S.K. Mehendiratta as Government Observer for the election of Office bearers of Hockey India. (c) The Central Government has issued guidelines to Hockey India on the process of conducting elections. (d) The procedure to be followed by Hockey India for conducting the elections could be seen from the letter of Mr. S.K. Mendiratta, the Government Observer for Elections to Hockey India dated 24.12.2009. (e) Hockey India’s election agenda shows that the agenda was sent to the Ministry of Sports and Government appointed observer. These facts will establish that the Central Government has got operational control over the third respondent. 17. Regarding the financial control, it could be seen that, (a) The flow of funds from the Central Government is the main source of income for the third respondent. 18. Regarding the functional control, the following facts will prove that the Central Government has got functional control over the third respondent. (a) The letter dated 27.04.2007, 17.04.2008 and 14.01.2008 of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India to the Honorary Secretary General, Indian Hockey Federation, New Delhi would reveal that the Government has approved the participation of certain players at Malaysia, Australia and at Kualalumpur, Malaysia. (b) Then the selection of the national team is done under the supervision of the Government Observer. Clause X which speaks of selection procedure is extracted here under: “10.1 NSFs are primarily responsible for judicious selection of sports persons for participation in major international events bases on merit and with the objective of enhancing national prestige and bringing glory to the country. As such the best sportspersons/team has to be chosen for representing the country. 10.2. The Selection Committee upto now consisted of the President, a representative of the Indian Olympic Association, an ex-international (an Arjuna Awardee or an international medal winner) to be nominated by the Govt., a nominee of SAI and the National Coach. 10.3. The Selection committee now will be constituted by the Federation comprising of the president, the National Coach and eminent ex-sportspersons. From the Selection committee Govt. and SAI Nominee are being withdrawn. Instead Govt. 10.3. The Selection committee now will be constituted by the Federation comprising of the president, the National Coach and eminent ex-sportspersons. From the Selection committee Govt. and SAI Nominee are being withdrawn. Instead Govt. will appoint a Govt. Observer for each discipline, who will be associated with all the activities of the National Federation. It will be mandatory for the Federation to inform him about Selection Committee Meetings, important national and international competitions.” The above facts would indicate that the Central Government has got operational, financial and functional control over the third respondent. 19. In the judgment reported in ( 2005 (4) SCC 649 ), Zee Telefilms Ltd., and Another vs. Union of India and Others, as referred to earlier, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that whether a body is state or not depends whether it is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming relief against the third and fourth respondent is maintainable. 20. Then, the next question that arises for consideration is whether granting affiliation for the State of Tamil Nadu, the 6th respondent is justifiable and that whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to grant affiliation to the second petitioner association as the Successor-in-interest of the first petitioner association. 21. On 05.05.2009, the International Hockey Federation (FIH) addressed a letter to the President, Indian Olympic Association, the second respondent herein to create one new body to look after the affairs of Hockey for both men and women in India. In pursuant to the same, the second respondent which is a supreme body by its letter dated 01.06.2009, addressed to all State Olympic Associations had declared that as per the decisions of the Nine member Committee, the Indian Hockey Federation and Indian Women Hockey Federation have been disaffiliated / derecognized and provisional affiliation has been given to the third respondent i.e., Hockey India, to look after the affairs of Hockey in India both for men and women. 22. 22. The letter of the second respondent dated 01.06.2009 addressed to All the State Olympic Associations is extracted here under: The President/Secretary, State Olympic Association Subject: Disaffiliation of Indian Hockey Federation and Indian Women Hockey Federation and provisional affiliation to Hockey India Dear Sir/Madam, As you are aware the General Assembly of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in its meeting held at Pune on October 10, 2008 had constituted a Nine-member Committee vested with all powers of General Body to deal with issues related to Hockey activities in India. As per the decision of the Nine-member Committee, the Indian Hockey Federation and Indian Women Hockey Federation have been disaffiliated / derecognized and provisional affiliation has been given to one association i.e., “Hockey India” to look after the affairs of Hockey in India for both men and women. “Hockey India” shall work on the “One Game-One Body” principle and shall give recognition to one body in each State/Union Territories to control, manage and administer both men and women Hockey. You are hereby advised to work in this direction and ensure affiliation / recognition of a single association in your state to lock after the Hockey activities for both men and women. Warm regards, Yours sincerely Suresh Kalmadi, M.P. President, IOA” 23. The Sports Development Authority of India, the fifth respondent herein had addressed to the Under Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare & Sports Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai stating that the Tamil Nadu Olympic Association, the fourth respondent herein is the authority to recognize the state body and will help the State Hockey Association both men and women to jointly conduct the General Body and form the unified body. A copy of the said letter is also earmarked to the fourth respondent. It would be useful to extract the said letter dated 11.11.2009. “To The Under Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare & Sports Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. Sir, Sub: Promotion of Hockey in India – Regarding Ref: 1. Government Lr. No.2933/S1/2009-1, Youth Welfare & Sports Development Department, Dated: 20.10.2009. 2. GOI DO Lr.No.F-32-23/08-SP.III, Dated: 1.10.2009. With reference to your letter, it is to state that the D.O. Letter of the Joint Secretary to Government of India in regard to the recognition of “Hockey India” and the transparent process of creation of unified bodies of Hockey Association in the State of Tamilnadu is underway. 2. GOI DO Lr.No.F-32-23/08-SP.III, Dated: 1.10.2009. With reference to your letter, it is to state that the D.O. Letter of the Joint Secretary to Government of India in regard to the recognition of “Hockey India” and the transparent process of creation of unified bodies of Hockey Association in the State of Tamilnadu is underway. The Tamilnadu Olympic Association who is the authority to recognize the State body will help the State Hockey Associations both men and women to jointly conduct the General Body and form the unified body. SDAT also will send an observer for the meeting. As such so far no such meeting had taken place. The Tamilnadu Olympic Association is being addressed and on the recommendations of Tamilnadu Olympic Association only the SDAT will gave recommendation for the recognition and place it in the SDAT Executive Committee for approval. Hence, it is to state that from SDAT action will be taken for the transport process of creation of unified Hockey Association after the approval by the Tamilnadu Olympic Association. Actions taken report will be sent to Government. Yours faithfully, For member Secretary. Copy to: The General Secretary, Tamilnadu Olympic Association, Room No.78, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Chennai – 600 003.” 24. By letter dated 02.11.2009, the first petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Hockey Association addressed a communication to the third respondent seeking affiliation to the second petitioner. The said letter reads that the first petitioner resolve to merge with the Tamil Nadu Women Hockey Association and W.H.A has resolved to merge with the first petitioner. They have also registered under the Societies Registration Act dated 26.06.2009 as Successor-in-interest of the first petitioner. 25. In the mean while, it seems that the fourth respondent has received one application from “Unified Tamilnadu Hockey” claiming to have been registered as per the norms of Hockey India as unified body. There upon, the fourth respondent seems to have issued notices to the two unified units viz., the second petitioner and “The Unified Tamilnadu Hockey Association” which is not a party in the writ petition calling upon them to submit their list of District Units. They have been informed that a decision will be taken on the basis of the particulars furnished by them. They have been informed that a decision will be taken on the basis of the particulars furnished by them. The said letter of the fourth respondent is usefully extracted here under: “To i) Hockey Tamilnadu ii) The Unified Tamilnadu Hockey Association Sir, Sub: Recognition of Association to be forwarded to Hockey India – furnishing list of Members Ref: Instructions from Sports Development Authority and Government of Tamilnadu – Reg. We have been informed by the Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu that the Department of Youth Welfare & Sports Development of Tamilnadu had been called upon by the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to ensure the creation of one unified body Hockey Association consisting of both Men & Women and to forward them for recognition. The Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu had therefore informed Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department of Tamilnadu stating “TNOA who is the authority to recognize the State body will help the State Hockey Associations both Men & Women to jointly conduct the General Body and form one unit for both Men & Women” and that the SDAT would also send observer for the meeting. The TNOA had been directed to forward the recommendations to the SDAT executive committee for approval. Pursuant to the said direction it is felt necessary for the TNOA to forward one Hockey unit from Tamilnadu to SDAT and also Hockey India. Accordingly a two member committee consisting of S/Shri W.I.Davaram, IPS and N. Ramachandran has been formed by the TNOA for scrutinizing and forwarding the Tamilnadu Hockey Unit. It has been brought to the notice of the Committee that in Tamilnadu state only two of you had been registered as an unified unit consisting of both Men & Women as per the conditions stipulated by the Hockey India. The Committee hereby calls upon you to submit your list of District Unit members affiliated / registered with your unified body along with their registration number and the number of persons enrolled as members in the said Association. Then decision will be taken on the basis of the above particulars furnished by both of you. On receipt of the details, the issue would be discussed in the presence of the Observer of the SDAT and the unit decided therein would be recommended for recognition. Then decision will be taken on the basis of the above particulars furnished by both of you. On receipt of the details, the issue would be discussed in the presence of the Observer of the SDAT and the unit decided therein would be recommended for recognition. You are directed to submit the same on or before 30.11.2009 so as to enable the Committee to decide the unified Association for recommendation and to forward the same to SDAT & Hockey India. If the details are not furnished by either of you, within the time mentioned above, the committee would be constrained to take the decision on the basis of the particulars furnished by the other of you and report to the Youth Welfare & Sports Development Department, Government of Tamilnadu, that there is no Unified Association as per the norms laid down by the Hockey India in the State of Tamilnadu. Thanking you, K. Murugan, General Secretary, TNOA” 26. There upon the second petitioner by its letter dated 29.11.2009 addressed to the fourth respondent stating that as regards the merger of the Women Association, it is in the process of completing all formalities and the process of merger will be complete as per the directions of the Government of India. The said letter is usefully extracted here under: “MR. K. Murugan General Secretary Tamilnadu Olympic Association Room No.78, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Chennai 600 003 Sir, Sub: Your undated letter regarding furnishing list of members pursuant to merger with Women’s Associations We are in receipt of your undated letter on the caption subject addressed to Mr. K. Jothi, Kumaran, at Room No.1, Mayor Radhakrishnan Hockey Stadium, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. The letter was received at the above address only on 25.11.2009. In this regard we wish to highlight that our parent body the Tamilnadu Hockey Association (TNHA) as on date is the affiliated member of the TNOA and Indian Hockey Federation. The TNHA is the only accredited Association that represents the sport of Hockey in Tamilnadu. The various Men’s District Hockey Associations in Tamilnadu are all affiliated members of the TNHA. The list of affiliated members of the TNHA has already been sent to you in November 2008. The affiliations remain in force till date. These affiliations of the Men’s Associations are being taken over by Hockey Tamilnadu now. The various Men’s District Hockey Associations in Tamilnadu are all affiliated members of the TNHA. The list of affiliated members of the TNHA has already been sent to you in November 2008. The affiliations remain in force till date. These affiliations of the Men’s Associations are being taken over by Hockey Tamilnadu now. As regards the merger of the Women’s Associations, we wish to state that we are in the process of completing all formalities. We understand that the Ministry of Sports, Government of India has written to the State Governments directing them to ensure that the process of creation of unified bodies at the State level is fair and transparent. Pursuant to that the SDAT had advised TNOA to help the State Hockey Associations both men and women to jointly conduct the General Body and form the unified body. SDAT also will send an observer for the meeting. Presently this is the only formality that has to be completed. Hockey Tamilnadu is taking necessary steps to comply with the directions of the Government of India / SDAT in this regard. In the meanwhile we have received your Letter which gives us only 4 days to complete this formality calling for a General Body Meeting. We have already initiated steps for calling for such a Joint General Body Meeting in the month December 2009. We would be pleased if the TNOA would send its representative as observer in this meeting as advised by SDAT. Notice of this Meeting would be sent to TNOA and a similar notice will be sent to SDAT. We trust that the TNOA will cooperate in ensuring that the process of merger is completed as per the directions of the Government of India & SDAT. K. Jothi Kumaran Hon. Secretary Hockey Tamilnadu & Tamilnadu Hockey Association” 27. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the second petitioner did not send the list of persons enrolled as members in the said association. However, the second petitioner claimed that it is the successor-in-interest of the first petitioner association and it should alone be given affiliation. There upon the fourth respondent seems to have called upon all the members of the various District Hockey Associations in Tamilnadu. Accordingly all the district units have unanimously elected / nominated Sri. N.R. Radhakrishnan as the President, Smt. Renuka Lakshmi as the Secretary and Sri. There upon the fourth respondent seems to have called upon all the members of the various District Hockey Associations in Tamilnadu. Accordingly all the district units have unanimously elected / nominated Sri. N.R. Radhakrishnan as the President, Smt. Renuka Lakshmi as the Secretary and Sri. Abdul Kadher as Treasurer, forming a new unit “Hockey Unit of Tamil Nadu”, the sixth respondent. 28. There upon, the fourth respondent seems to have sent a list of members representing the State of Tamil Nadu and sought affiliation from the third respondent. The third respondent on receipt of the same has given affiliation to the sixth respondent. The petitioners in spite of submitting the list of members and also after the merger process was over as was intimated to the fourth respondent has complained that the fourth respondent has not acted fairly. The third respondent has acted as per the communication of the fourth respondent and hence it cannot be said that the third respondent has not acted fairly. As stated already, even as per the letter of the second respondent dated 29.11.2009, the merger process was not completed. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance for not recognizing the second petitioner either by third or fourth respondent. The fourth respondent had to select only a unified body which had the largest number of men and women hockey players in the State, since one such unit could be selected and recommended for affiliation with the Hockey India, the third respondent. 29. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief that has been sought for by the petitioners and in fine the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, no orders as to costs.