Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 735 (RAJ)

Manoj Sharma v. Distt. Football Association

2014-03-20

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 35(2) of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the order dated 15.2.13 passed by the Appellate Authority & Principal Secretary Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate authority') whereby the appellate authority has allowed the Appeal being No. P.13(13) Sports/2012 Jaipur filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and set aside the registration certificate dated 17.6.11 issued by the Registrar ((Institutions)), Jaipur. 2. The facts in nutshell are that on an application being filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the said Act, the Registrar, (Institutions) after holding inquiry had issued the registration certificate dated 17.6.11 registering the Association named "Jaipur Zila Football Association, Jaipur" under the provisions of the said Act. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 lodged a complaint before the Registrar, (Institutions) alleging inter alia that the said certificate dated 17.6.11 issued to the Jaipur District Football Association was in violation of the provisions contained in the said Act. It was also alleged that the petitioners had misrepresented that it was affiliated with the State Level Football Association, as the Adhoc Committee of Rajasthan State Football Association had no authority to issue the certificate produced by the petitioners. According to the respondents, they had also submitted an application on 26.10.05 for being registered as the District Football Association, which application was pending and, therefore, the registration certificate issued in favour of the petitioners be cancelled. It appears that pursuant to the said complaint, the Registrar (Institutions) had called upon the petitioners to submit their reply vide the letter dated 25.8.11, and had further called upon vide letter dated 20.9.11 to explain as to how the Adhoc Committee was constituted. It further appears that the Registrar (Institutions), also sought guidance from the Registrar, (Cooperative Societies) with regard to the said complaint filed by the respondents, vide the letter dated 17.12.12. Thereafter the Registrar (Institutions) vide letter dated 4.5.13 informed the respondents that they could filed appeal under Section 35 of the said Act with regard to their complaint. It further appears that the Registrar (Institutions), also sought guidance from the Registrar, (Cooperative Societies) with regard to the said complaint filed by the respondents, vide the letter dated 17.12.12. Thereafter the Registrar (Institutions) vide letter dated 4.5.13 informed the respondents that they could filed appeal under Section 35 of the said Act with regard to their complaint. Accordingly the respondents filed the appeal before the appellate authority, who vide the impugned order dated 15.2.13 allowed the said appeal and cancelled the registration certificate dated 17.6.11 issued by the Registrar (Institutions) (wrongly mentioned in the order as having been issued by the Dy. Registrar, (Cooperative Societies). 3. The learned counsel Mr. R.K. Daga for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the appellate authority could not have cancelled the registration certificate in absence of any provision in that regard. Drawing the attention of the court to the provisions of the Act, more particularly of Chapter-VI pertaining to the disaffiliation, enquiry and disqualification, the learned counsel submitted that since the Registrar had not held any enquiry as contemplated under the said provisions and since the Registrar had not passed any order, the appeal itself was not maintainable under Section 35 of the said Act. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. S.S. Hora for the respondents submitted that the petitioners had committed fraud and misrepresentation before the Registrar (Institutions) for obtaining the certificate in question inasmuch as the Adhoc Committee of Rajasthan State Football Association did not have any authority to issue certificate of affiliation on the basis of which the petitioners had applied for registration. According to him, the said misrepresentation and fraud having been realised by the Registrar (Institutions), he had sought guidance from the Registrar, (Cooperative Societies). Mr. Hora further submitted that since the Registrar, (Institutions) could not have reviewed or recalled his own order of issuing registration certificate, he advised the respondents to file the appeal under Section 35 of the said Act, which was filed and has been rightly dealt with by the appellate authority. Mr. Hora has also submitted that since the application of the respondents was pending since 2005 for registration under the Act, the Registrar (Institutions) could not have issued the certificate in favour of the petitioners and such issuance of certificate being an order passed by the Registrar, was appealable before the appellate authority under Section 35 of the said Act. Mr. Hora has also submitted that since the application of the respondents was pending since 2005 for registration under the Act, the Registrar (Institutions) could not have issued the certificate in favour of the petitioners and such issuance of certificate being an order passed by the Registrar, was appealable before the appellate authority under Section 35 of the said Act. Mr. Hora has also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors., 1980 (Supp) SCC 420 and in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581 to submit that when the order is palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension or fraud, the authority has power to correct the said order, to prevent the abuse and misuse of the process of law. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be beneficial to cursorily deal with the scheme of the said Act. As per the long title of the said Act, the said Act has been enacted to provide for registration, recognition and regulation of Sports Associations and to facilitate and regulate the activities and affairs of the Sports Associations in the State of Rajasthan and also to provide for recognition and regularisation of the right to represent the State of Rajasthan and the various Revenue Districts in the State. As per Section 3 of the said Act every Sports Association that is defined under the Act other than a primary sports body is required to be registered under the provisions of the said Act. As per Section 4, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State is the Registrar for the purposes of the said Act. Section 5 deals with the application for registration of the Sports Association, under which State Level Sports Association and its affiliated District Level Sports Association have to apply for registration as per the requirement of the said provision. The Registrar after having been satisfied about the said requirement, would issue certificate under Section 6 of the said Act. Section 5 deals with the application for registration of the Sports Association, under which State Level Sports Association and its affiliated District Level Sports Association have to apply for registration as per the requirement of the said provision. The Registrar after having been satisfied about the said requirement, would issue certificate under Section 6 of the said Act. Section 9 deals with the membership of a Sports Association, under which every District Level Sports Association registered under the said Act has to be a member of the concerned State Level Sports Association and a primary sports body has to be a member of the concerned District Level Sports Association. It further provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, any addition, deletion or change in the membership can be made only at a General Body Meeting of the Sports Association. Chapter-VI of the said Act deals with the disaffiliation, inquiry and disqualification. As per Section 21, a State Level Sports Association can, after giving due hearing, disaffiliate any District Level Sports Association, which has not fulfilled any of the obligations laid down in Chapter-VIII of the said Act for two years in succession, and inform the Registrar to take appropriate action under Section 24 of the said Act. A Sports Association is liable to action on any of the grounds for disqualification mentioned in Section 22 of the said Act. The Registrar is empowered to hold enquiry under Section 23 of the said Act, on the request of State Level Sports Association or on the request of less than one tenth of the total members of a Sports Association or on his own motion. Section 24 of the said Act deals with the disqualification of the Sports Association. Section 35 of the said Act deals with the appeals, under which any Sports Association or person aggrieved by an order made by the Registrar under the provisions of the Act can appeal against the order to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports within 30 days of such an order. 6. From the bare reading of the said provisions contained in the Act, it transpires that there is no provision for cancellation of the registration certificate issued by the Registrar under the said Act. 6. From the bare reading of the said provisions contained in the Act, it transpires that there is no provision for cancellation of the registration certificate issued by the Registrar under the said Act. As stated hereinbefore, the registration certificate is issued by the Registrar under Section 6 of the said Act, after having been satisfied that the proposed Sports Association had complied with the provisions of the Act. Chapter-VI deals with the disaffiliation, enquiry and disqualification, however does not provide for cancellation of the registration certificate issued under Section 6 of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that on the receipt of the complaint made by the respondents, the Registrar, (Institutions) had called upon the petitioners to give reply to the said complaint and had also sought guidance from the Registrar (Co-operative Societies) vide letter dated 17.2.12, however thereafter the Registrar, (Institutions) did not hold any enquiry with regard to the said complaint nor passed any order thereon and advised the respondents to file an appeal before the appellate authority, as per the letter dated 4.5.12. There being no order passed by the Registrar under the Act, on the complaint filed by the respondents, the appeal filed by the respondents before the appellate authority, purported to be under Section 35 of the said Act was not maintainable in the eye of law. Even if the issuance of registration certificate in favour of the petitioners is construed as an order passed by the Registrar (Institutions), as submitted by Mr. Hora, then also the said appeal having not been filed by the respondents within 30 days of such order of issuance of the certificate, the appeal was time barred and hence not maintainable. 7. It is further required to be noted that according to the respondents they had already applied for registration as back as in the year 2005, however there is nothing on the record to show that whether any such application was in fact filed and also pursued. The only document relied upon by Mr. Hora is a copy of challan dated 26.10.05 from which it appears that the respondents had deposited Rs. 266/- towards registration charges, however Mr. Hora has failed to point out as to what action the respondents had taken to follow up the said application for registration. The only document relied upon by Mr. Hora is a copy of challan dated 26.10.05 from which it appears that the respondents had deposited Rs. 266/- towards registration charges, however Mr. Hora has failed to point out as to what action the respondents had taken to follow up the said application for registration. The court therefore is of the opinion that the respondents themselves were not interested in getting their association registered under the said Act and therefore could not be said to be the persons aggrieved under Section 35 of the said Act. It was also submitted by Mr. Hora that the petitioners had misrepresented before the Registrar that they were affiliated to the Rajasthan State Football Association inasmuch as the Adhoc Committee of the said Association did not have the authority to grant affiliation or issue the certificate of affiliation. The said submission also does not deserve any consideration inasmuch as the Registrar before issuing the registration certificate must have made an enquiry as to whether the petitioners Association was affiliated with the Rajasthan State Football Association or not and after having been satisfied must have issued the certificate under Section 6 of the said Act. Once the Association is registered as a District Level Sports Association, the provisions of the Act have to be followed and the duly elected members have to manage the affairs of such Association. If there is any mismanagement or violation of the provisions contained in the Act or bye-laws, there are sufficient provisions under Chapter-VI of the said Act, whereby the State Level Sports Association could disaffiliate its District Level Sports Association. The Sports Association is also liable to be disqualified on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 22 of the said Act and the State Level Sports Association could recommend the Registrar that a District Level Sports Association affiliated to it may be disqualified. Even the Registrar on his own motion or on the request of the State Level Sports Association or on the request of not less than one tenth of the members of the Sports Association could hold the enquiry and disqualify the Sports Association as per Section 23 and 24 of the said Act. Even the Registrar on his own motion or on the request of the State Level Sports Association or on the request of not less than one tenth of the members of the Sports Association could hold the enquiry and disqualify the Sports Association as per Section 23 and 24 of the said Act. Thus, if any irregularity or illegality has been committed by any Sports Association, the remedy provided is under Chapter-VI of the said Act and not to cancel the registration certificate under Section 6 of the said Act. The said procedure having not been followed either by the Registrar or by the appellate authority, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority suffers from gross illegality and perversity. There cannot be any disagreement with the decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Hora for the respondents, however the said decisions have no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the respondents have neither pleaded nor proved the fraud. It is also pertinent to note that the appellate authority while cancelling the registration certificate has not assigned any reason except stating interalia that there was violation of the provisions contained in the said Act. The impugned order is absolute silent as to how the provisions of the said Act were violated or what were the violations made by the petitioners while obtaining the registration certificate. Such order, though running into 5 pages, being without any reasons could be termed as non-speaking order only and therefore also the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order being illegal and perverse and without any authority of law, the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The revision petition stands allowed accordingly.Revision Allowed. *******