Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 739 (TS)

Charminar Cricket Club v. State of Telangana

2024-09-12

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by petitioner, which is a registered society and affiliated to the 2nd respondent Association aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing letter dated 02.07.2024 on the ground that issuance of the said letter is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the direction of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman dated 04.06.2024 in Case No. 11 of 2024 (wherein petitioner is one of the parties) and so also is against the bye-laws and Rules of the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Sports, Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N. Gangadhar, learned counsel for Respondent Hyderabad Cricket Association and Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Aditya Vyas, learned counsel for the impleaded 4th respondent. 3. Petitioner had taken out I.A. No 1 of 2024 to grant stay of the intending action of Respondents 2 and 3 for conducting League Matches pursuant to letter dated 02.07.2024, wherein this Court granted interim order dated 07.08.2024, after taking into consideration non-appearance of Respondents 2 and 3, operative portion of which is extracted hereunder: “Heard the learned counsel for petitioner On behalf of the respondents, learned Government Pleader for Sports appears. Though Writ Petition was adjourned more than six times, so as to give opportunity to Hyderabad Cricket Association to contest the matter, none appears. List on 05.09.2024. Prima facie, it appears, the decision taken in Letter 02.07.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent is contrary to the direction of the Ethic Officer and Ombudsman dated 14 06 2024 in Case No. 11 of 2024 and also against the bye-laws and Rules of the 2nd respondent Association. Hence, there shall be interim stay of intended action of Respondents 2 and 3 for conducting all league matches as per the team placements made by them pursuant to the decision made by the 3rd respondent in letter dated 02.07.2024, which are expected to be conducted from 08.07.2024.” 4. Hence, there shall be interim stay of intended action of Respondents 2 and 3 for conducting all league matches as per the team placements made by them pursuant to the decision made by the 3rd respondent in letter dated 02.07.2024, which are expected to be conducted from 08.07.2024.” 4. The basic grievance of petitioner is that the 3rd respondent being the governing body of the 2nd respondent had not followed the directions of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman to conduct play-offs and in ranking the teams in a fair and transparent manner, so that the composition and placement of the teams can be ethically achieved and there would be no scope for any grievance in the process of promotion and demotion which system and procedure was time-tested method based entirely on performance of the teams. As against the time-tested method, the 3rd respondent had allegedly passed resolution in its meeting on 30.06.2024 and vide letter dated 02.07.2024 addressed to the 2nd respondent had informed about its unanimous decision/resolution not to conduct playoff matches as it is not logically-possible as the league season is already delayed and play-off matches would delay the season. Petitioner had relied upon the order of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman vide order dated 14.06.2024 in Case No. 11/24. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that petitioner approached this Court without any valid reason and grievance. In other words, the gist of the counter is that petitioner has no locus to file Writ Petition. This objection of the 2nd respondent is rejected for the reason that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner is admittedly an affiliated member of the 2nd respondent, thus has the locus to file the present Writ Petition. This Court is entertaining this Writ Petition under Article 226 taking into consideration the overall circumstances and the observations made by the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman in the order dated 14.06.2024 in Case No. 11 of 2024. It is also the case of the 2nd respondent that in 2021, the then Apex Council/Committee promoted about 20 to 30 teams without any basis and petitioner was one among such teams which were promoted. The Single Member Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such promotions of the teams are illegal and positions of the teams were reverted to the place as they were in 2019-2020. This assertion of the 2nd respondent is mentioned in Para 7 of the counter-affidavit. The Single Member Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such promotions of the teams are illegal and positions of the teams were reverted to the place as they were in 2019-2020. This assertion of the 2nd respondent is mentioned in Para 7 of the counter-affidavit. That apart, the 2nd respondent contends that the 3rd respondent passed unanimous resolution on 30.06.2024 to proceed with alternative method as suggested by the Ombudsman in its order dated 14.06.2024 and had addressed the letter dated 02.07.2024 to the 2nd respondent for conducting league season immediately, wherein modalities for conducting the upcoming league were mentioned. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman had suggested more than one method of promoting and demoting the teams for league matches and gave the 3rd respondent liberty to choose that is best-suited in the current scenario and the 3rd respondent having considered all the factors, had taken a decision to promote teams for the upcoming seasons. The contention of the 2nd respondent that the grievance of petitioner with regard to depriving it of right to play the game of cricket in the three-day league during the cricketing season for 2024-2025 by failing to conduct play-offs among various teams, etcetera, as against the direction given by the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman vide proceedings dated 14.06.2024 is not correct and the same was denied. The 2nd respondent admitted that the 3rd respondent being the governing body of the 2nd respondent was directed by the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman to conduct play-offs and ranks the teams in a fair and transparent manner, so that composition and placement of the teams can be achieved and there would not be any scope of grievance inter-alia the process of promotion and demotion which is a time-tested based entirely on performance of teams which have played the matches among various teams and compete for the place in the league. Having admitted with regard to the procedure and system of conducting the league matches as prevalent prior to 2019-2020 and which was also considered by the Single Member Committee, and had followed the same system and conducted the league matches in successful way, it is rather surprise that Respondents 2 and 3 for whatever reasons have adopted the same procedure and the system for conducting league matches for the current season 2024-2025 which is found fault by the Single Member Committee and had a resolution on 30.06.2024 and followed by issuance of letter/proceedings dated 02.07.2024 which is impugned in this case. The 2nd respondent in its counter had tried to justify its acts in various ways of scheduling the league matches for the season 2024-2025. In the said attempt, the 2nd respondent sought to rely upon the order of Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman, wherein an alternative solution was given to Respondents 2 and 3. The said observation/direction given by the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman to Respondents 2 and 3 is contrary to the observations/ recommendations made by the Single Member Committee in the report filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No 6779 of 2021. More so, the 2nd respondent itself had filled an affidavit in SLP seeking a direction for implementation of recommendations of the Single Member Committee which includes recommendation No. 16, thereby, the action of the 3rd respondent in passing resolution on 30.06.2024 and issuing letter dated 02.04.2024 is acting against their own statement/application filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Jai Hanuman Cricket Club had taken out I.A. No. 3 of 2024 to implead himself as the 4th respondent. It is their case that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court as mentioned supra, its players are getting affected as conducting of league matches was stayed. There are certain players whose age groups are nearer to the qualifying/cut-off age for various future tournaments and if they are not playing the league matches, their prospects of getting selected for the future tournaments would be difficult, rather they will be excluded from selection in the teams. And as a consequence, their career will be affected and will have adverse impact on their future cricketing careers. It is further pleaded that to eradicate the said situation, it is necessary for this Court to vacate the stay. Since there was no opposition, the implead Application was allowed. 7. And as a consequence, their career will be affected and will have adverse impact on their future cricketing careers. It is further pleaded that to eradicate the said situation, it is necessary for this Court to vacate the stay. Since there was no opposition, the implead Application was allowed. 7. The sequence of events that were explained by the Implead Petitioner is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had appointed Single Member Committee on 14.02.2023, Justice L. Nageshwara Rao, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India and pursuant to the same, the affairs of the 2nd respondent were taken charge by the said Committee and during the course of its functioning, the Single Member Committee had established a system and procedure for conducting regular league matches by the 2nd respondent-Association. It is relevant to consider the observations made by the Single Member Committee at page Nos. 17 and 18, Para Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the report. Relevant portion of the observation is extracted hereunder: “Para No. 16 - Selection of Cricketers to represent Hyderabad at various tournaments has to be done on the basis of performance in the league competitions. The League matches were not conducted properly for the past 3-4 years, mitially due to Covid-19 pandemic and thereafter due to mismanagement Selection of cricketers to represent the State was being done by cricketers being called for trails and there are serious complaints of bribes being taken for selecting cricketers to represent the State The structure of the league competitions is as follows: 16.1 Three (3) day league played by 22 teams. 16.2 Two (2) day league played by 63 teams. 16.3 One (1) Day league 106 teams. Selections to the state teams is normally made on the basis of performance of players from the highest league which is the 3-day league The three- day league comprised of 22 teams for a long period. The size of the 3-day league competition was increased by promoting 20 more teams arbitrarily from the 2day league without any basis. This resulted in dilution of the standards of the game. The size of the 3-day league competition was increased by promoting 20 more teams arbitrarily from the 2day league without any basis. This resulted in dilution of the standards of the game. Para No. 17 - Hyderabad was one of the top teams in domestic cricket Unfair methods being adopted in selections of teams at various levels have-led to the deterioration of the standards of the game which resulted in the Hyderabad cricket team being relegated from the Elite division to the Plate division last year in the prestigious Ranji Trophy Tournament Meritorious cricketers have suffered due to lack of opportunity of selection to the State teams Several complaints have been received by me of large amounts of money paid by parents to get their children selected to the teams. This needs a thorough investigation. In the last five months, record number of 847 league matches have been conducted Apart from the coaching staff selection committee members, supporting staff members have also been appointed by me for a period of two years. Para No. 18 - The results of the aforementioned are seen immediately as Hyderabad cricket teams at various levels are faring very well this season.” The recommendation No 16 & 17 of the Single Member Committee report at Page No. 40 are extracted hereunder: “16. CONTINUING THE HCA LEAGUES AND RESTRUCTURING TOURNAMENTS ORGANISED BY HCA The HCA was defunct and in a dire straits - While I have kick started things with a record 847 league matches, proper maintenance of grounds, transparent selections and appointment of staff at the HCA, for both men and women, more needs to be done. As such, the HCA, needs to continue its activities in a transparent manner and support all the budding cricketers Leagues and matches need to be conducted regularly and completed on time to provide competition and teams must be selected on merit. The leagues also need to be restructured to include District Cricket Associations as well. 17. RECORDING OF HCA MATCHES In light of volume and severity of complaints received for HCA matches being fixed and/or score-sheets of the same being tampered with, it is imperative that all HCA matches are video recorded by the HCA and securely stored in its possession. Scoresheets for all HCA matches must be maintained digitally so as to avoid any possibility of human intervention and possible tampering therein.” 8. Scoresheets for all HCA matches must be maintained digitally so as to avoid any possibility of human intervention and possible tampering therein.” 8. From the above observations and recommendations, it is very clear that the previous committee/apex council of the 2nd respondent for 2019-2020 had indulged in promoting teams to ‘A’ Division Leagues as against the procedure prevalent, thereby, to avoid and also to maintain high standards of the game, the Single Member Committee had set up the system wherein the category of teams, number of teams to play in different league matches basing on their standards and performances, were finalised. The Single Member Committee had followed the system that was prevailing prior to 2019-2020 season which is three-day league to be played by 22 teams, Two-day to be played by 63 teams and One-day league to be played by 106 teams. The Single Member Committee had filed report dated 29.10.2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as per which, at the given point of time, 847 matches were conducted. The said number is phenomenal and from the said report, it is also clear that Hyderabad Cricket team was playing reasonably well when compared to the earlier years. The report was placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which vide order dated 05.12.2023, had directed Respondents 2 and 3 to implement the recommendation of Single Member Committee. Relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder: “However, as an interim measure, we direct that the recommendations in the meantime will come into force and be implemented.” Thus, it is very clear that Respondents 2 and 3 have to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 05.12.2023 and follow the recommendation of Single Member Committee, more specifically, conducting of league matches as observed in Para 16 at page No 40 of the report. That apart, the 2nd respondent filed Interlocutory Application in SLP No. 6779 of 2021, seeking a direction “(i) to allow the above-mentioned application and modify the order dated 5-12-2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court, (ii) pass any other, in the interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” In support of the aforesaid prayer, the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit, relevant portion of paragraph 16 is that “it is most respectfully submitted, in light of the aforesaid reasons, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to modify its Order dated 05.12.2023 and direct the petitioner Association to implement recommendation Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 10-11 & 13-20, in their true sense and spirit pending adjudication of the present Special Leave Petition.” 9. The aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by passing another order on 14.05.2024, wherein it was observed that “Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for M/s Hyderabad Cricket Association, upon instructions, has stated that as per their affidavit as also on the instructions received, they would not be implementing their resolution relating to non-acceptance of certain recommendations of Justice Rao’s Committee.” From the averments made in Para No. 16 of the affidavit mentioned supra, the 2nd respondent had, by itself, sought for implementation of recommendation No. 16, 17 and 18 of the Single Member Committee report, thereby now cannot act contra and pass Resolution on 30.06.2024 basing on which, letter dated 02.07.2024 was issued. From the above affidavit and the prayer sought in IA, it is apparent that the 2nd respondent had agreed for recommendation No. 16 of the Single Member Committee. As against the said Application, the 3rd respondent had passed Resolution on 30.06.2024 and issued letter dated 02.07.2024 reverting to the procedure that was prevalent in 2019-2020 which was found fault by the Single Member Committee in his report. There are no valid reasons given by the 3rd respondent in reverting to 2019-2020 procedure which was found fault by the Single Member Committee. 10. The Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman had also made a specific observation in its order dated 14.06.2024, relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “6. It is seen from the records that a notification dated 05.05.2023 issued prior to commencement of the league season 2023-24 states as follows regarding promotion and demotion of teams. 1. 10. The Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman had also made a specific observation in its order dated 14.06.2024, relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “6. It is seen from the records that a notification dated 05.05.2023 issued prior to commencement of the league season 2023-24 states as follows regarding promotion and demotion of teams. 1. In A Division, two teams at the bottom of the points table will be demoted to ‘B’ Division while the top 2 of the ‘B’ Division will be promoted to the ‘A’ Division at the end of the season 2. In B Division, the bottom 2 teams in each pool will play against the bottom teams from the other pools to decide the ranking and the 2. Teams at the bottom of the points table of the B Division will be demoted to C Division. 3. In C Division, the top team in each pool will play against the top teams from the other pools to decide the ranking among them. The top 2 teams of the C Division will be promoted to the B Division at the end of the season. 7. I have not noticed any decision said to have taken by the Apex Council not to have any promotions or demotions in the upcoming season as the league matches could not be completed. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, and keeping in view of the recommendations of the Single Member Committee of Hyderabad Cricket Association dated 29 10.2023 and keeping in view of age-old practice of promotion of meritorious 2 Top Teams to the Higher Division and demotion of the Bottom 2 Teams to the Lower Division and to improve the quality and standards of the game of cricket and to recognize the primary stake holders who are the players the practice of promotion and demotion should be followed To ensure fairness in this process, the Apex Council may consider the teams with First Position in each Group of A2 (Two Day) Division (Groups A, B, C, D and E) to have play-offs to decide the top 2 teams that may be promoted to Al (3) Three Day) Division and similarly the teams with First Position in each Group of A3 (One Day) Division (Groups A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J) to have play-offs to decide the top 2 teams that may be promoted to A2 Division. For the demotion process, the bottom positioned two teams in each Group of their Division may have play-offs to decide the two teams in each Division to be demoted. The Respondent may consider an alternate method to play-offs if they are logistically constrained in organizing the matches, however taking into consideration the fairness in the process of promotion of two teams to Higher Division and two teams to Lower Division.” 11. To some extent, the direction of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman is in line with the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee. However, giving an alternative solution to Respondents 2 and 3 to conduct leagues for the upcoming season is against the Application mentioned supra by the 2nd respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, probably, filing of application in SLP No. 6779 of 2021 was not brought to the notice of Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman. For whatever be the reason, the act of the 3rd respondent in passing Resolution on 30.06.2024 and issuance of letter dated 02.07.2024 to 2nd respondent promoting the teams and increasing the number of teams to participate in ‘A’ division league from 22 to 36 is against the report of the single member committee, so also is against the Interlocutory Application filed in SLP. Thus, the acts of the 3rd respondent in passing the Resolution on 30.06 2024 and issuance of letter dated 02.07.2024 to the 4th respondent is against the recommendations of the Single Member Committee. The conduct of the 2nd respondent in filing Application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.04.2024 and the act of the 3rd respondent in passing the Resolution on 30.06.2024, is not sustainable and so also, the same is against the directions of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman. Thus, considering from any perspective, the acts of commission of Respondents 2 and 3 in scheduling to hold the matches for the season 2024-25 by promoting teams and increasing the number of teams in ‘A’ Division league, on the face of the record is against the recommendations of Single Member Committee, direction of the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman and filing of Interlocutory Application in SLP No. 6779 of 2021. This SLP is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Respondents 2 and 3 cannot take shelter on the ground that league matches for the current cricket season had started late, thereby play-offs cannot be held and there is absolutely no valid reason or justification for promoting teams. This SLP is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Respondents 2 and 3 cannot take shelter on the ground that league matches for the current cricket season had started late, thereby play-offs cannot be held and there is absolutely no valid reason or justification for promoting teams. For the acts of delay and latches on the part of Respondents No. 2 and 3, the opportunity of members of the 2nd respondent in playing play-offs cannot be snatched away by Respondents 2 and 3. This shows the casual approach of Respondents 2 and 3 in meeting the requirements of holding of leagues matches for the current cricket season. 12. This Court, having considered all the aspects mentioned supra, is of the considered view that the conduct of the 3rd respondent in passing Resolution on 30.06.2024 and informing the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 02.07.2024 to hold the league matches for the cricket season 2024-25 is directly in contra to the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee, the system of planning and scheduling league matches for the cricket season 2024-2025 is against the procedure and system that was followed and adopted by the Single Member Committee. Thus, this Court finds no valid reasons and justification given by Respondents 2 and 3 in acting contra to the system and procedure set up by the Single Member Committee. The conduct of the 3rd respondent in passing Resolution on 03.06.2024 and issuance of letter dated 02.07.2024 to the 2nd respondent is not sustainable. The conduct of Respondents 2 and 3 is hit by the Doctrine of Estoppel. 13. This Court considering the issue in the larger magnitude and in the interest of the budding cricketers and to avoid any controversy in future, more specifically scheduling of all formats of league matches for the season 2024-25 hereby appoint Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao, Judge (Retired), High Court for the State of Telangana as supervisory committee. 14. This Court requests the learned Supervisory Committee to undertake the exercise of finalizing the teams and for the same, shall adopt the system and procedure that was adopted by the Single Member Committee for the cricket season 2023-24, for conducting league matches for the cricket season 2024-25. 15. 14. This Court requests the learned Supervisory Committee to undertake the exercise of finalizing the teams and for the same, shall adopt the system and procedure that was adopted by the Single Member Committee for the cricket season 2023-24, for conducting league matches for the cricket season 2024-25. 15. Respondents 2 and 3 shall extend all necessary assistance and support to the supervisory committee and shall provide necessary infrastructure and emoluments on par with the Ethics Officer of the 2nd respondent. 16. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 17. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.