Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 947 (JK)

Gurmeet Singh v. State of J&K

2017-10-13

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
JUDGMENT : ALOK ARADHE, J. OWP Nos. 464 and 787 of 2017: 1. In OWP No. 464 of 2017, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to make Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as Association) functional and elect the management in light of the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent No. 1 to implement the orders of Supreme Court in letter and spirit and to issue a writ directing the respondent No. 1 to resume cricket practice/training of the petitioner and other cricket players. 2. In OWP No. 787 of 2017, the petitioners seek quashment of notice appointing ombudsman issued in local daily on 19.5.2017 and to direct the respondents to make the Association functional and to elect the management in light of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. In view of commonality of the issues involved in both writ petitions they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 3. The petitioner in OWP No. 464/17 is an aspirant to become a professional cricketer, whereas petitioners in OWP No. 787/17 claim themselves to be members of working committee of the Association. The association was founded affiliated to the Board of Control for Cricket in India in 1970. The Supreme court in proceeding pending before it constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of former Chief Justice of India Justice R.M. Lodha to recommend reforms for cricket in India and determine punishment for those who were inducted in the report submitted by the Mudgal Committee with regard to irregularities in Indian Primer League (IPL). The Committee headed by Justice Lodha submitted its recommendations with regard to functioning of Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred as BCCI). The Supreme court vide judgment dated 18.7.2016 accepted the recommendations of the Committee which inter-alia provided for disqualification of the office bearers of BCCI and of its affiliated State Associations who fail to meet the norms recommended by the committee which were accepted by the Court. 4. The Association on 19.07.2016 held a meeting of working committee chaired by Mr. Imran Raza Ansari as President. In the aforesaid meeting observer of BCCI namely Prem Thakur was also present to oversee the election process of the Association. In the said meeting of the Committee Mr. Ansari, Mr. Mehboob Iqbal, Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Shah, Mr. Ab. 4. The Association on 19.07.2016 held a meeting of working committee chaired by Mr. Imran Raza Ansari as President. In the aforesaid meeting observer of BCCI namely Prem Thakur was also present to oversee the election process of the Association. In the said meeting of the Committee Mr. Ansari, Mr. Mehboob Iqbal, Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Shah, Mr. Ab. Rouf, Mr. Javid Ahmad Kitab, Mr. Chander Mohan Sharma, Shiban Lal Trakroo, Desh Rattan Dubey were elected as President, Chairman, General Secretary, Treasurer, Vice Chairman's of Kashmir Wing and Jammu Wing and Joint Secretaries of Kashmir and Jammu Wings separately. It is pertinent to mention here that all the candidates were elected unopposed and a decision was taken to convene the extra ordinary meeting of the general body to ensure updation of rules of the Association. The association by resolution dated 18.9.2016 resolved to appoint ombudsman accordingly Justice Iqbal Ahmad Ansari retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court was appointed as Ombudsman by an order dated 02.01.2017, the Supreme Court inter-alia held that a person shall be disqualified for being an office bearer if he is a Minister or Government servant, holds any office or post in sports or athletic association enters apart from cricket, has been an office bearer of the BCCI for cumulative period of 9 years has been charged by court of law for having committed any criminal offence and has attained the age of 70 years. In view of the aforesaid order admittedly the president and the treasurer of the association were disqualified. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that elected body did not initiate the process of election and the elected members hold their positions in violation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. The Association, therefore, had no authority to appoint ombudsman. It is also the case of the petitioners that as per guideline provided by Lodha penal, the association was required to incorporate recommendations of the Lodha committee in the rules governing the association and then to conduct the election in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Lodha Committee. It is also the case of the petitioner that the elections for the association were not hold as per the guidelines fixed by the Supreme Court on 15.11.2016. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners have approached this court seeking the reliefs stated supra. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that the elections for the association were not hold as per the guidelines fixed by the Supreme Court on 15.11.2016. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners have approached this court seeking the reliefs stated supra. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent No. 3 was disqualified as he was politician and sports Minister of the State. Similarly General Secretary of the association namely Iqbal Ahmed Shah in view of his admission, was convicted in a criminal case namely FIR No. 76/13 registered at Police Station Nowgam for offences under section 13 of the Gambling Act vide judgment dated 23.11.2013. It is also submitted that the treasurer of the Association was disqualified as he was above 70 years of age. Similarly the chairman had incurred disqualification as he had served the Association for a term of more 9 years. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the President, Chairman, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Association were disqualified in view of the recommendations of the Lodha Committee report which was accepted by the Supreme court vide order dated 02.01.2017. It is also submitted that ombudsman was appointed by an incompetent body which had no authority in law to appoint the same. It is urged that the Lodha committee recommendations which were accepted by the Supreme Court should be implemented in letter and spirit and administrator be appointed to ensure that free and fair elections of the association are held. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for BCCI submitted that the elections of the Association were held on 19.7.2016 and the term of the office bearers of the Association has expired on 18.7.2017 and thereafter there is no elected body of the Association. It is urged that an administrator should be appointed, as there is no provision of holding over the post in the rules of the Association. It is also argued that the elections of the Association should be held as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court after incorporation of recommendations of reports submitted by Lodha committee in the rules of Association. It is also pointed out that administrators were appointed for the State level bodies for Hyderabad and Delhi by the respective High Courts and similarly an administrator should also be appointed for the Association for holding free and fair elections. It is also pointed out that administrators were appointed for the State level bodies for Hyderabad and Delhi by the respective High Courts and similarly an administrator should also be appointed for the Association for holding free and fair elections. It is also pointed out that appointment of the administrator will ensure free and fair election in accordance with the recommendations of the Lodha Committee. It is urged that out of 120 crores allocated by BCCI to the Association a sum of Rs. 80 crores has been embezzled and an amount of Rs. 34 crores was seized by the police which should be handed over to the administrator so as to enable him to meet the necessary expenditure and thereafter the funds should be placed at the disposal of the newly elected body which may spent the amount as per the norms fixed by the BCCI. It is also submitted that the administrator be granted liberty to appoint ombudsman. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has submitted that in OWP No. 787/17, the association has not been sued which is a legal entity, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is urged that petitioner No. 1 claims himself to be president of RCC, Jammu but has concealed the fact that the order of restraint was passed against him by Munsiff in civil suit No. 35 of 2017 by which he has been temporarily restrained from interfering with the functioning of Rehari Cricket Club and he has been restrained to represent himself before BCCI and the Association as president of the club. It is pointed out that petitioner No. 5 is suppressed the fact that he has filed a suit before 3rd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar on the same facts and grounds. However, the aforesaid fact has been concealed in this writ petition, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 and 5 have no locus-standi to maintain the writ petition. Ld. counsel also questioned the locus-standi of petitioners 2 to 4. It is also submitted that the resolution passed by working committee with regard to appointment of ombudsman was not challenged in the writ petition and only notice dated 19.05.2017 by which intimation was given with regard to appointment of ombudsman has been challenged, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the resolution passed by working committee with regard to appointment of ombudsman was not challenged in the writ petition and only notice dated 19.05.2017 by which intimation was given with regard to appointment of ombudsman has been challenged, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. It is argued that the ombudsman appointed by the working committee has started functioning w.e.f. 10.7.2017 and has decided all the claims/disputes, therefore, writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 10. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have recognized respondents 3 and 4 as duly elected office bearers and therefore, no relief can be granted to them. It is also argued that BCCI has made a statement before Supreme Court that the Association has made appointment of ombudsman. In accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of the Association, has appointed ombudsman, by the members who have not earned any disqualification. It is further argued that the Committee of administrators of BCCI has approved the appointment of ombudsman and list of office bearers has already been submitted to BCCI which has uploaded the same on its site. It is contended that BCCI has no role to play in the appointment of ombudsman which is to be made by the Association. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that in any case that tenure of the elected office bearers of the Association is alive till 31.12.2017. 11. In response to the submissions made in OWP No. 464/17 the counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the aforesaid writ petition is a sponsored writ petition, as petitioner is a cricket player who represents ACC club and its secretary namely Ehsan Mirza is main accused in a case with regard to misappropriation of funds. In support of his submissions reference has been made to decisions in the cases of South Central Railway Employees vs. Cooperative Credit Society, (2015) 2 SCC 727 , Kaboolchand vs. Deputy Custodian Alwar, AIR 1952 Raj. 146 , Daryao vs. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1457 , J.K. Cotton Spinning and Waving Mills Co. In support of his submissions reference has been made to decisions in the cases of South Central Railway Employees vs. Cooperative Credit Society, (2015) 2 SCC 727 , Kaboolchand vs. Deputy Custodian Alwar, AIR 1952 Raj. 146 , Daryao vs. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1457 , J.K. Cotton Spinning and Waving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and Another, AIR 1965 SC 1310 , Jabalpur Municipal Corporation vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 837 , Superintendent of Taxes Tezpur vs. Bormahajan Tea Company Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 533 and K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481. 12. By way of rejoinder reply learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the elections for the period for which respondents 3 and 4 were elected is already over and respondents have no authority in law to occupy any post in the Association. It is further submitted that action of appointment of ombudsman is ab initio void and in fact a notice dated 8.9.2016 was issued for amendment of the constitution of the Association, however, on the aforesaid date no meeting was held. It is also argued that no meeting of the working committee was held to appoint ombudsman and any correspondence of respondents 3 and 4 with BCCI has no legal sanctity, as the same is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. It is further submitted that respondents 3 and 4 have never informed the BCCI that their term as office bearers of the Association was over and they had incurred disqualification. It was also denied that OWP No. 464/17 is a sponsored petition. 13. By way of rejoinder reply learned senior counsel for the BCCI submitted that BCCI has recognized, the respondents 3 and 4 but the tenure of respondents 3 and 4 has expired on 18.7.2017 and BCCI, therefore, cannot recognize the office bearers of the Association in any case beyond 19.7.2017. Therefore, it has become imperative to appoint an administrator who has required first to incorporate the recommendations of Lodha Committee in the rules of the Association and thereafter to hold the elections as per the norms fixed by the Lodha Committee which had been accepted by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, respondents 3 and 4 have been disqualified, therefore, they were not entitled to be elected as office bearers. In the instant case, respondents 3 and 4 have been disqualified, therefore, they were not entitled to be elected as office bearers. Thereafter on 2.7.2017, the Supreme Court directed that all office bearers of BCCI and its affiliated state associations which fail to meet the norms recommended by the Committee as accepted by this court shall forthwith demit and cease to hold the office. In view of the directions of the Supreme Court four persons namely President, Chairman, General Secretary and Treasurer ceased to hold their offices and since they were parties to the decision taken for appointment of the ombudsman, therefore, the appointment of ombudsman made by the committee, even otherwise has lost its legal sanctity w.e.f. 02.01.2017. It is also pointed out that the Association did not inform the BCCI with regard to the disqualification incurred by its office bearers. The office bearers who have incurred disqualification have participated in the meeting of the working committee in which the ombudsman was elected, therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to the appointment of the ombudsman. It is also argued that the meeting was conveyed by the General Secretary who was disqualified. 14. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The following issues emerge for consideration in these cases: “(i) Whether in view of the fact that issue with regard to management of the affairs of BCCI and the election of office bearers of BCCI is pending consideration before Supreme Court, this court can proceed adjudicate the controversy involved in these petitions? (ii) Whether the petitioners have locus-standi to maintain the writ petitions? (iii) Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have been rendered infructuous? (iv) Whether term of the Committee of the office bearers of the Association is one year or three years? (v) Whether Committee has authority to appoint ombudsman? (vi) Future course of action? I shall proceed to deal with the issues ad-seriatim. Issue No. (i) From perusal of the order dated 18.7.2016 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235/14 and two other civil appeals, it is evident that the Supreme Court had constituted the committee headed by Justice R.M. Lodha to look into the management and affairs of BCCI. I shall proceed to deal with the issues ad-seriatim. Issue No. (i) From perusal of the order dated 18.7.2016 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4235/14 and two other civil appeals, it is evident that the Supreme Court had constituted the committee headed by Justice R.M. Lodha to look into the management and affairs of BCCI. The aforesaid committee submitted its recommendations which were accepted in entirety and the Supreme Court directed committee to ensure the implementation of the recommendations made by it. The BCCI and all concerned persons were directed to co-operate and to act in furtherance of directives. Thereafter by communication dated 28.8.2016 the committee headed by Justice R.M. Lodha issued guidelines for elections of State Association and fixed the same as 15.11.2016. The Supreme Court by an order dated 02.01.2017 inter-alia issued following directions, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- “25. For the above reasons, we order and direct as follows: (i) All the office bearers of BCCI and of its affiliated State Association who fail to meet the norms recommended by the Committee and accepted by this Court, shall forthwith demit and cease to hold office namely: “A person shall be disqualified from being an Office Bearer of he or she: (h) Is not a citizen of India: (i) Has attained the age of 70 years. (j) Is declared to be insolvent, or of unsound mind. (k) Is a Minister or government servant. (l) Holds any office or post in a sports or athletic association or federation apart from cricket. (m) Has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI for a cumulative period of 9 years. (n) Has been charged by a Court of law for having committed any criminal offence.” (ii) Shri Anurag Thakur, President of BCCI and Shri Ajay Shirke, Secretary BCCI shall forthwith cease and desist from being associated with the working of BCCI. (iii) A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr. Anurag Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded against under the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (iv) A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr. Anurag Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded against with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973. (v) A Committee of administrators shall supervise the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer. (iv) A notice to show cause shall issue to Mr. Anurag Thakur to explain why he should not be proceeded against with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973. (v) A Committee of administrators shall supervise the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer. (vi) This Court shall by a separate order nominate the person who shall form part of the Committee for administrators. In order to enable the court to have the benefit of objective assistance in making the nominations, we request Mr. Fali S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Amicus Curiae to assist the Court by suggesting names of enterprise. We request the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to also place their suggestions before the Court so as to facilitate a considered decision. (vii) In addition to the function assigned in (v) above, the Committee of administrators shall also ensure that the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 18 July 2016 (which accepted the report of the Committee with modification) are fulfilled and to adopt all necessary and consequential steps for that purpose. (viii) In view of the directions contained in (ii) above, the senior most Vice-President of BCCI shall perform the duties of President, BCCI and the Joint Secretary shall perform the duties of Secretary. Those of the office bearers of BCCI who are not disqualified in terms of clause (i) (other than the President and Secretary) may continue subject to their filing an unconditional undertaking before this Court within four weeks of the date of this order to abide by and implement the directions contained in the judgment 18 July 2016. Upon the Committee of administrators as nominated by this Court assuming charge, the existing office bearers shall function subject to the supervision and control of the Committee of administrators. The Committee of administrators would have the power to issue all appropriate directions to facilitate due supervision and control. (ix) The remuneration payable to the members of the Committee of Administrators shall be fixed in consultation with the Committee consisting of Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran. The role of the justice R.M. Lodha committee shall hereafter be confined to overall policy and direction on such matters as may be referred by this Court. Justice R.M. Lodha, Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran. The role of the justice R.M. Lodha committee shall hereafter be confined to overall policy and direction on such matters as may be referred by this Court. (x) We would request the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Amicus Curiae to endeavor to submit their suggestions to this Court within two weeks. The proceedings shall be listed before this Court on 19 January 2017 for pronouncement of directions in regard to the names of the administrators.” However, in the instant case, the petitioner have questioned the continuance of the elected body for the Association beyond 19.07.2017 and appointment of ombudsman of the Association which is not the subject matter of the writ petition before the Supreme Court. It is pertinent to mention here that High Court of ad-judicature of Hyderabad vide order dated 23.3.2017 passed in WP (PIL) No. 16/17 has appointed retired Judge of the Supreme Court and retired Judge of the High Court for Hyderabad Cricket Association. Similarly High Court of Delhi vide order dated 31.1.2017 in OWP (C) No. 7215/11 has appointed retired judge of Supreme Court of India as administrator for Delhi and District Cricket Association, therefore, there appears no apparent reason for this court to take a different view. Therefore, the submission that since the matter is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, therefore, this court has no authority to deal with the issues raised in the writ petition does not deserve acceptance. Issue No. (ii) The Petitioners in OWP No. 787/17 are five in number. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 have alleged disqualification only with regard to petitioners 1 and 5. However, the fact that the petitioners 2 to 4 were members of the working committee and have locus to maintain the writ petition has not been disputed. The petitioner in OWP No. 464/17 is a player who is vitally interested in ensuring that affairs of the Association are properly managed as he is aspirant to be professional cricketer. However, the fact that the petitioners 2 to 4 were members of the working committee and have locus to maintain the writ petition has not been disputed. The petitioner in OWP No. 464/17 is a player who is vitally interested in ensuring that affairs of the Association are properly managed as he is aspirant to be professional cricketer. Therefore, in any case the petitioner No. 6 in OWP No. 787/17 and petitioner in OWP No. 464/17 are aggrieved persons and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that they have no locus-standi to maintain the writ petition, therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the issue with regard to locus of petitioners 1 to 5 to maintain the writ petition. Accordingly it is held that the petitioners 2 to 4 in OWP No. 787/17 and petitioner in OWP No. 464/17 have locus-standi to maintain writ petition. The aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative. Issue No. (iii.) The issue which arises for consideration in these writ petitions are with regard to appointment of ombudsman by the working committee of the Association and to make the Association functional and to elect the management in light of the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court, therefore, this court is required to examine whether the elections of the body have been held in accordance with the recommendations made by the Lodha penal which have been accepted by the Supreme Court and whether the elected body had the authority to appoint the ombudsman, therefore, it cannot be said that these writ petitions have been rendered infructuous, accordingly the aforesaid issue is answered. Issue No. (iv) The Association is governed by the rules which are known as rules of the J&K Cricket Association. Rule 8 and Rule 14 of the Rules which are relevant for the purpose of the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions are reproduced below for ready reference: 8. MANAGEMENT (i) The Association shall be administered and managed by a Working Committee consisting of members of the following categories; (a) One or two members, as the case may be nominated out of the panel of five by each affiliated Club to the General Council with a minimum of 12 members of the Committee and a maximum of 25 members of the Committee. (b) Three to Five members out of the Life Members and the Associate Members. (b) Three to Five members out of the Life Members and the Associate Members. (ii) The above mentioned Committee shall elect annually from amongst its members the following office bearers who shall function honorarily: (a) President. (b) Chairman. (c) Two Vice-Chairmen (One from Jammu Province and the other from Kashmir Province) (d) General Secretary. (Two from Kashmir Province (e) Two Joint Secretaries and one form Jammu Province) (f) Treasurer. (iii) Vacancies: Vacancies of the office bearer shall be filled up by the Committee by election. Vacancies in the Committee shall be filled up by nomination by the affiliated Club concerned, whose seat has fallen vacant and in case of Committee members elected out of the Life and Associate Members the vacancy shall be temporarily filled by co-operation by the Committee till the annual election for the same is held. (iv) Powers and duties of the Committee. The Committee shall have the power (a) necessary for management and conduct of the Association and for promotion of its objects, including the power to take all actions as may be deemed proper against members and players of the affiliated clubs: (b) to inspect and pass accounts presented by the Treasurer at its meetings: (c) of interpretation with regard to Rules and Regulations of the Association: (d) to elect annually: 1. Captain. 2. Vice-Captain. 3. Manager and the additional staff as and when required: and appoint the Auditor of Auditors and fix his or their remuneration: (e) Whenever necessary, to appoint Sub-Committees consisting of three to five members for the purchase of equipment and selection of players for matches and for other purpose. The Selection Sub-Committee will necessarily be comprised of Cricketers of repute and the Captain shall be one of the members of this Sub-Committee. 14. MEETINGS “(A) The Association shall hold the following meetings: (a) General Council Meetings. (b) Extraordinary General Council Meetings. (c) Working Committee...... (B) Working Committee Meetings: (i) The Committee shall meet at least twice in a year either at Jammu or at Srinagar whichever place is convenient for holding of such a meeting. The General Secretary shall give 10 days notice to the concerned members intimating the place, date and time of such a meeting. An agenda specifying the nature of business to be transacted at the meeting shall accompany the notice. The General Secretary shall give 10 days notice to the concerned members intimating the place, date and time of such a meeting. An agenda specifying the nature of business to be transacted at the meeting shall accompany the notice. (ii) The meetings shall be presided over by the President if he is available and, in his absence, normally by the Chairman of one of the Vice-Chairmen and decision shall always be taken by a majority vote. (iii) The quorum for this meeting shall be 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Committee. Thus from conjoint reading of Rule 8 and Rule 14 it is evident that the working committee has to elect annually from amongst its members the following office bearers who shall function honorarily namely President, Chairman, Two vice Chairman one from Jammu province and another from Kashmir province, General Secretary, two Joint Secretaries one from Kashmir province and another from Jammu province and a treasurer. Thus the aforesaid office bearers of the working committee hold their office for a term of one year only. Admittedly in the instant case, the elections were held on 19.7.2016 in the meeting of the working committee which was chaired by one Imran Raza Ansari in which observer of the BCCI was also present. Thus the office bearers in the meeting held on 19.7.2016 were elected for a term of one year which has expired on 18.7.2017. Thus conjoint reading of Rule 8 and 14 of the Rules of the Association leaves no iota that the terms of the office bearers of the working committee is one year. Accordingly the aforesaid issue is answered. Issue No. (v) From perusal of the answer to the 4th issue the consequences which flows from interpretation of Rule 8 and relevant extract of Rule 14 is, that there is no elected body in place of the Association after 19.7.2017. On 18.7.2016 the recommendations of the Lodha Committee were accepted by the Supreme Court. Thus neither politician nor a person who has more 70 years could have been elected as office bearer. Similarly a person who was convicted in connection with criminal offence could not have also elected as office bearer. The office bearers who had incurred disqualification had participated in the meeting in which ombudsman was appointed. Thus neither politician nor a person who has more 70 years could have been elected as office bearer. Similarly a person who was convicted in connection with criminal offence could not have also elected as office bearer. The office bearers who had incurred disqualification had participated in the meeting in which ombudsman was appointed. It is pertinent to note that notice dated 08.09.2016 was issued to commence the meeting of general council on 29th September, 2016. However, on 9.9.2016 a corrigendum was issued from which it is evident that neither the issue with regard to appointment of ombudsman was on the agenda, nor meeting of working committee was convened or held by qualified persons. Therefore no sanctity can be attached to the appointment of ombudsman. Issue No. (vi) The Association appears to be riddled with infighting with two rival groups jostling for power and to control the affairs of the Association. Since the Association is not represented by any duly elected committee w.e.f. 19.7.2017, therefore, it has become imperative to appoint administrators. The Lodha committee responded to frequently asked questions on 6.9.2016 and has mentioned the minimum amendments to be carried out in the rules/bylaws of the State Associations by 30.9.2016 which reads as under:- (i) Deletion of all provisions enabling holding of posts for more than 9 years. (ii) Restriction of Office Bearers to only the following five posts: President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Joint Secretary; Delete provisions for all other posts. (iii) Amendment of the term/tenure of Office Bearer to be 3 years. (iv) Insertion of a cooling-off clause, which bars previous office bearers either at the BCCI or the State Association from contesting the succeeding Office Bearer elections or having a second consecutive term. (v) Amendment to the composition of the Government Body to include at least one woman, representatives of the players and a nominee of the Accountant General of the State. (vi) Amendment to the Membership clause to automatically grant membership to interested former international cricketers from the State provided they have not already opted for membership of another Association. (vii) Insertion of a clause barring voting by proxy. (viii) Insertion of disqualifications from being an Office Bearer as stated in Rule 14(3) of the Rules read with the judgment of the Supreme Court. (ix) Insertion of Clauses for appointment and functioning of the Ombudsman, Electoral Officer and Ethics Officer. (vii) Insertion of a clause barring voting by proxy. (viii) Insertion of disqualifications from being an Office Bearer as stated in Rule 14(3) of the Rules read with the judgment of the Supreme Court. (ix) Insertion of Clauses for appointment and functioning of the Ombudsman, Electoral Officer and Ethics Officer. These may be in line with Rule 40-41, 32-33 and 38-39 of the proposed BCCI Rules. (x) Insertion of provisions for transparency as per Rules 34-36 (financial) and 37 (others) of the proposed BCCI Rules as well as Pages 76-77 of the Report. (xi) Insertion of a provision that removes the social club (if any) from the management and control of the Association. (xii) Adoption of the Agents Registration Norms carried in Annexure C to the Report and as applicable to players in States.” Therefore, the administrators shall have to ensure that the rules of J&K Cricket Association are amended inconformity with recommendations made by the Lodha Committee which has already been accepted by the Supreme Court and thereafter to hold the elections as per the norms fixed by Lodha Committee. The aforesaid course of action is also supported by the BCCI as well. 15. Reverting to the submissions made on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 that in the absence of any specific challenge to appointment of ombudsman no relief can be granted to the petitioners suffice it to say that Article 226 empowers to mould the relief in facts of a case where patent illegality is committed by the authorities [See Bangalore Development Authority vs. Vijaya Kasing Ltd. (2013) 14 SCC 737]. Similarly the submission that respondents 3 and 4 have authority to continue till 31.12.2017 is sans substance. The contention that since justice Ansari has decided the disputes therefore challenge to his appointment as ombudsman does not survive does not deserve acceptance, as Justice Ansari continues to be ombudsman and it is not the case of respondents 3 and 4 that his tenure has come to an end. 16. In view of preceding analysis I deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: “(i) That Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad retired Judge of the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam Chief Justice of M.P. and Allahabad High Courts shall act as administrators of the J&K Cricket Association to ensure free and fair elections. 16. In view of preceding analysis I deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: “(i) That Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad retired Judge of the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam Chief Justice of M.P. and Allahabad High Courts shall act as administrators of the J&K Cricket Association to ensure free and fair elections. (ii) The administrators shall ensure that the rules of the J&K Cricket Association are amended inconformity with the recommendations made by the Lodha committee which has already been accepted by the Supreme Court. (iii) The BCCI and the Association shall render all assistance to the Administrators, to effectively perform their duties. (iv) The expenditure to be incurred for travelling expenses and for stay of Administrators shall be borne by the Association. In addition the Administrators shall be entitled to remuneration of Rs. 75,000/- each per working day. (v) The administrator may make appointment of such persons so as to assist them to hold free and fair elections of the office bearers of the Association. (vi) The administrators shall ensure that elections of office bearers of Association are held after amendment of the rules for electing office bearers of the Association. The administrators shall also be at liberty to appoint an ombudsman who shall decide the disputes between the members affiliated to the Association. (vii) The police authorities are directed to deposit the amount seized by it in favour of the Association. The treasurer shall not expend the amount so received in the account of the Association without approval of the Administrators. The Administrators may also appoint a financial advisor, who shall maintain proper accounts. The Administrators shall also be at liberty to appoint ombudsman if so advised. After elections are held the newly elected body shall be entitled to expend the amount as per norms of BCCI. (vii) Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 2 months. (viii) Registrar Judicial shall transmit copy of this order to Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad and Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam.” 17. Accordingly the writ petitions are disposed of. OWP No. 1510/2015: 18. (vii) Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 2 months. (viii) Registrar Judicial shall transmit copy of this order to Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad and Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam.” 17. Accordingly the writ petitions are disposed of. OWP No. 1510/2015: 18. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) By issuance of writ of Mandamus, official respondents be commanded to forbear from indulging and involving in the activities of the petitioner Association, inasmuch as causing any impediment and interference into its activities including cricketing activities by any manner, mode or method at the behest of respondent No. 2 and respondents Nos. 5 and 6. (b) By issuance of Writ of Mandamus, official respondents in general and respondents No. 7 to 9 in particular, be commanded to refrain from extending any kind of official support or help in any manner whatsoever to respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 in regard to and in respect of the affairs of petitioner Association and its activities by any manner, mode and method. (c) By issuance of Writ of Mandamus, respondent No. 1 be commanded to take effective and necessary measures for desealing of the record cupboards, almiras, drawers lying in the respective office rooms of office bearers of petitioner Association forthwith. (d) By issuance of Writ of Mandamus, the respondent No. 1 be commanded to initiate appropriate action against the respondent No. 3 and 4 for wanton disregard of rules of duty committed on 20th July, 2015 while participating in the so-called meeting convened by respondent No. 5.” 19. Admittedly Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as an Officer Bearer of J&K Cricket Association in a meeting held on 12.05.2014 as per the version of the petitioner himself. The term was for three years. The aforesaid period has expired on 11.05.2017, therefore, in view of the fact that the term of the petitioner No. 2 has expired and for the reasons assigned in the judgment passed today, in OWP No. 787/2017 and OWP No. 464/2017, nothing survives adjudication in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. OWP No. 1970/2015: 20. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) Allow the present writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. OWP No. 1970/2015: 20. In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) Allow the present writ petition. (b) Direct the respondent No. 3 to the respondent to recognize for all purposes, only those office bears of JKCA who have been elected for the term of three years, pursuant to legal and valid election held on 12.05.2014, as the elected representatives of Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association. (c) Direct the respondent No. 2 to provide all facilities, amenities, grants, funds etc as per the rules of BCCI, to JKCA headed by petitioner No. 2 for the promotion of game of cricket in State of Jammu and Kashmir.” 21. Admittedly, the petitioners were elected in election held on 12.05.2014 and as per their version, the term of office bearers is three years which has expired on 12.05.2017. Therefore, in view of the order passed by this Court today in OWP No. 787/2017 and OWP No. 464/2017, nothing survives adjudication in this writ petition. Accordingly the same is disposed of. OWP No. 576/2017: 22. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia has prayed for the following reliefs: “By issuance of a writ of certiorari, both minutes of meeting dated 03.10.2015 wherein the private respondents have been confirmed as genuine administration of club and decision of 2009 to the effect of genuineness of the petitioners has been quashed, be quashed to the said extent. The minutes of meeting dated 20.07.2015 and 18.09.2016 also being fraudulent be quashed to the extent of participation of private respondents along with all other adverse decisions taken by the respondent JKCA against the petitioners. The JKCA be further directed not to release funds in favour of the private respondents and to provide all facilities to the petitioners. The private respondents be restrained from impersonating themselves as members of petitioner club and be directed to deposit all grants and aids in favour of the petitioners. The JKCA be directed not to release any funds and to recover all funds already paid to the private respondents and pay the same in favour of the petitioners. By issuance of a writ of mandamus the respondent Association be directed to treat the petitioners as genuine representatives of the petitioner Club for all purposes whatsoever with all consequential benefits and give no such recognition to private respondents in any manner whatsoever. By issuance of a writ of mandamus the respondent Association be directed to treat the petitioners as genuine representatives of the petitioner Club for all purposes whatsoever with all consequential benefits and give no such recognition to private respondents in any manner whatsoever. By issuance of a writ of prohibition the private respondents be restrained from interfering in the smooth functioning of the petitioner Club in any manner whatsoever, as same shall be in the interest of justice.” 23. For the reasons assigned by this Court in the judgment passed today in OWP No. 787/2017 and OWP No. 464/2017, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Ombudsman who may be appointed by the Administrators to adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner in accordance with law if not already decided. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.