ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. 1. Heard Sri M. Hareesh Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioner, Sri V. Rajender Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 – Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) and K. Sathakarni, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 – Commercial Taxes Cricket Club. 2. Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the action of HCA in not recognizing Petitioner Club as their rightful and legitimate affiliated Club based on the Order dated 29.11.2024 in Case No. 6 of 2024 of the Hon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge, despite Petitioner's continuous affiliation, participation in league tournaments, payment of requisite fees and compliance with all norms since its inception in 1986. 3. Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the Order of the Ombudsman Additional Charge of Respondent No. 2 dated 29.11.2024 in Case No. 6 of 2024 which refused to exercise the jurisdiction as per the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of Hyderabad Cricket Association- 2018 of Respondent No. 2 and directing the parties to approach the Civil Court, (which direction could not have been passed against the Petitioner herein as it was the Respondent in Case No. 6 of 2024). They also sought a declaration that action of Respondent No. 2 in not recognizing Petitioner Club as the rightful and legitimate affiliated Club of Respondent No. 2, despite Petitioner's continuous affiliation, participation in league tournaments, payment of requisite fees and compliance with all norms since its inception in 1986 and consequently direct the Respondent No. 2 to recognize them as the full Member of the Hyderabad Cricket Association with all the rights and privileges to the Petitioner which it is entitled to as affiliated club of Hyderabad Cricket Association. 4. Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club. Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 was filed by the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club, represented by its Secretary B. Susheel Kumar Semwal who was elected as Secretary for the period 07.12.2024 - 06.12.2025. Since the said period has come to an end, Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025 was filed. Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 was filed by the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club, represented by its Secretary B. Susheel Kumar Semwal who was elected as Secretary for the period 07.12.2024 - 06.12.2025. Since the said period has come to an end, Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025 was filed. Though Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 has, in fact, become infructuous, at the request of the parties, since Respondent No. 3 filed Counter in Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 and requested this Court to treat the same as counter in Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 also, the same are being disposed of by a common Order. 5. The case of Petitioner is that their Club was founded in 1986-87 by Bhupender Lal and T. Basavaraj with its registered office as D. No. 349/SRT, Opposite Sarvodaya Mahila Mandal, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. Since its inception, the entire Annual Subscription and League fees have been paid by Petitioner through its bank account and receipts have been issued by HCA to Petitioner and the receipts for the years 1998- 99, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 have been filed before this Court. 5.1. It is stated, from 1986-87 onwards, the names of the office bearers of Petitioner are shown as having attended all the Annual General Meetings (AGM) and Special General Meetings (SGM). The team selected by Petitioner alone has participated in various league matches and knockout tournaments conducted by the HCA. Petitioner filed Certificate of Registration dated June 2010 of Club, Bylaws, letter addressed to Telangana Commercial Taxes NGOs Association, letter from the Telangana Commercial Taxes NGOs Association, letter addressed by B. Susheel Kumar Semwal handing over administration of the Club, Resolution and minutes of meeting of Petitioner Club, list of members presented at the 53rd AGM of HCA, receipts for payments made by Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 from 1998 to 2022, ID card issued by Respondent No. 2 for Special General Meeting, annual list/record of executive body from 2010 to 2025, Master Register maintained by Hyderabad Cricket Association, letters addressed by T. Basavaraj (Committee Member) to the President, Hyderabad Cricket Association, statement of savings bank account of Petitioner Club, letter from the then Petitioner Secretary to the Supervisory Committee etcetera before this Court in support of Petitioner's contention. 5.2. 5.2. It is the further case of Petitioner that, out of the blue in 2023, Respondent No. 3 without any right, interest or entitlement, based on an alleged letter issued by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, had participated in the elections of the HCA. Apart from this solitary act, Respondent No. 3 has no relation whatsoever with Petitioner Club. It is contended, Respondent No. 3 i.e. B. Venkataiah approached HCA for the first time in 2023. Prior thereto, Respondent No. 3 was not even aware about the existence of the Club. If Respondent No. 3 had a semblance of right, interest or entitlement in the Club, he would have basic record to show his election as Secretary, payment of subscription amounts from the account maintained by him, representation in the meetings of HCA, participation in the leagues etcetera. In the absence thereof, it is clear that the claim by Respondent No. 3 is nothing more than an arm-twisting device to extract money. It is further contended that the said Venkataiah has not placed on record a single document to establish that he has any semblance of right, interest or entitlement in the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club or that the said Club is in any way connected to the Commercial Taxes Department. Petitioner by stating the aforesaid facts requested this Court to take cognizance of the illegitimate manner in which Respondent No. 3 is holding Petitioner to ransom, and Respondent No. 3 should face all the legal consequences for his ill thought of misadventure and must be brought to book for illegally and unlawfully styling himself as Secretary of the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club. 5.3. Petitioner contends that in this factual scenario, Respondent No. 3 filed Case No. 6 of 2024 before Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge of Hyderabad Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as 'Ombudsman'), against Petitioner with a prayer to recognize Respondent No. 3 as a full member of HCA. In the said case, the Ombudsman, despite categorically recording a finding that Respondent No. 3 failed to file any documentary evidence establishing its case, relegated both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to civil Court vide Order dated 29.11.2024 and further directed HCA not to recognize Petitioner or Respondent No. 3 as its full member pending adjudication by the civil Court. 5.4. 5.4. Petitioner challenges the Order of the Ombudsman, on the ground that Ombudsman failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and despite declining to assume such jurisdiction, proceeded to pass directions beyond its authority by directing Petitioner (Respondent in Case No. 6 of 2024) and Respondent No. 3 to approach the civil Court. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi v. K.S. Jagannathan , (1986) 2 SCC 679 , wherein it was categorically held that the High Courts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, can issue a writ of mandamus or directions even in matters involving discretion, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise, has wrongly exercised, or has abused such discretion, including on mala fide or irrelevant considerations, so as to compel proper and lawful performance of that discretion, and in an appropriate case may itself pass the order which the authority ought to have passed. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder: " 20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court mayitself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." (emphasis supplied) 7. The case of Respondent No. 2 HCA is that a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the Orders passed by the Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. The counter confined only to the ground of maintainability and did not traverse any of the facts as mentioned in the writ affidavit. Respondent No. 2 placed heavy reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Nalgonda District Cricket Association vs. Hyderabad Cricket Association and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground of maintainability. 8. Respondent No. 3 contended that Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 is not maintainable since it was filed by its erstwhile Secretary Susheel Kumar who was not an employee of the Commercial Taxes Department. He has no locus to maintain the present Writ Petition. They placed reliance on Article 12 and Preamble of the Bylaws of Petitioner Association to support his contention. Respondent No. 3 did not plead a positive case or place on record any document establishing that he had any independent right or claim over the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club. Relying upon the bylaws of the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club, it is prayed that Writ Petition be dismissed as not maintainable. 9. Respondent No. 3 did not file any independent counter in Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025 and adopted the Counter filed in Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025. Respondent No. 3 contended that despite the fact that administration of the Club was now in the hands of the employees of the Commercial Taxes Department, its objection as to locus still subsists. 10. Respondent No. 3 contended that despite the fact that administration of the Club was now in the hands of the employees of the Commercial Taxes Department, its objection as to locus still subsists. 10. In view of the rival claims, the points that arise for consideration are: (i) whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 would be maintainable against the Order passed by the Ombudsman on the grounds of non-exercising of jurisdiction and passing of directions despite refusing to exercise jurisdiction, beyond its authority as claimed by the Petitioner? (ii) Whether the Writ Petitions filed by Petitioner are not maintainable on the ground that they are against the byelaws, rules and regulations of the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club as claimed by the Respondent No. 3? (iii) Whether the Order passed by the Ombudsman in Case No. 6 of 2024, calls for any interference? 11. POINT (i) : Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 contended that Writ Petition in its present form is not maintainable as this Court in Nalgonda District Cricket Association v. Hyderabad Cricket Association , categorically held that a Writ Petition could not lie against an Order passed by the Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association as the Order passed by the Ombudsman was akin to an arbitral award which ought to be challenged before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for Petitioner rebutted the said argument and contended that Writ Petition is maintainable inasmuch as Ombudsman in Case No. 6 of 2024 refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it, despite declining to assume such jurisdiction, proceeded to pass directions beyond its authority by directing Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to approach the civil Court. Therefore, there was no decision per se on merits, against which Petitioner could have filed an Appeal. 12. Learned counsel for Petitioner further argued on law, as follows: (i) The High Court's power under Article 226 is plenary and is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. (ii) The powers of the High Court under Article 226 have no fetters and the restrain on the power is a self-imposed restrain. (iii) Even if there is an alternative remedy, the High Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to meet the ends of justice. (ii) The powers of the High Court under Article 226 have no fetters and the restrain on the power is a self-imposed restrain. (iii) Even if there is an alternative remedy, the High Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to meet the ends of justice. (iv) Once the authority is refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested with it, a Writ Petition under Article 226 would not only be maintainable but would be an appropriate remedy. (v) The Ombudsman, while refusing to exercise jurisdiction, could not have gone ahead and issued a direction to the Petitioner, in the case filed by the Respondent No. 3. Such an action would be perverse and unsustainable. (vi) The Judgment in Nalgonda District Cricket Association case (supra), is distinguishable on facts as in that case, the Ombudsman had conclusively decided the issue and this Court was of the view that since the Ombudsman had exercised jurisdiction and passed a detailed Order, the decision of the Ombudsman would be akin to decision by the arbitrator and a Writ Petition against the arbitration award would not lie. In the present case, there had been a complete failure to exercise the jurisdiction, and a perverse direction is given despite refusing to exercise jurisdiction and as such the Writ Petition is not only maintainable but a proper remedy. 13. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for Petitioner. In the present case, the Ombudsman had refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations-2018 of Hyderabad Cricket Association. This jurisdiction was not exercised despite recording a categorical finding that Respondent No. 3 (B. Venkataiah) failed to produce any documentary evidence. The relevant portion of the Order is reproduced as under: "3. Both the parties were put on notice in view of the rival contentions claimed by both the parties in respect of the same club and to decide who is genuine and real person entitled to represent the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club and a notice dated 21.08.2024 was issued to furnish answers to the questionnaire. Both the parties were put on notice in view of the rival contentions claimed by both the parties in respect of the same club and to decide who is genuine and real person entitled to represent the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club and a notice dated 21.08.2024 was issued to furnish answers to the questionnaire. The questionnaire for which the replies required to be submitted are about the details of the documents pertaining to the date of filing of the application for affiliation and date of affiliation, Registration Certificate, details of the executive body, general body, year wise list given to HCA, participation of the League matches from the date of affiliation, details of the bank accounts, audited accounts of the Club, play grounds if any the club has, details of the members of the Clubattending the AGM and Special General Meetings, details of any special assignments given to the members of the Club, copies of the master register prepared by HCA, List of the Cricketers who are the parties of the General body. At the request of the parties, the matter was adjourned, posted to 18.10.2024. For the questionnaire the Petitioner could not submit any documentary evidence, and the matter went several adjournments for amicable settlement. 14. Once the Ombudsman recorded a specific finding that no documentary evidence was produced before it by Respondent No. 3, the Authority could not have relegated both the Petitioner and Respondent to civil Court and since Respondent No. 3 (Petitioner before the Ombudsman) who was required under law to prove his case and miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof. In such a factual situation, the Ombudsman committed an error in ignoring the records placed by Petitioner from 1986 onwards and putting a halt to the exercise of full membership rights of Petitioner all of a sudden after more than three decades. Such a direction is ex-facie arbitrary and capricious. 15. This Court therefore, deems it appropriate to reiterate that the power vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary, of the widest amplitude, and forms an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 . Exercise of such power is controlled only by self-imposed restraints and not by any statutory limitation or other external fetter. Exercise of such power is controlled only by self-imposed restraints and not by any statutory limitation or other external fetter. Mere existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, oust or curtail writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as authoritatively held in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks , (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein it was laid down that the High Court may nonetheless exercise its jurisdiction where fundamental rights are affected, principles of natural justice are violated, or the authority has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. As rightly contended by learned counsel for Petitioner, once an authority vested with jurisdiction refuses to exercise the same, invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court not only becomes maintainable but constitutes the proper and efficacious remedy; such an authority, having declined to assume jurisdiction, cannot thereafter proceed to issue directions to the parties, and any such course of action is clearly ultra vires, perverse, and unsustainable in law. 16. In the present case, once the Ombudsman expressly declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, it could not have simultaneously directed Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to approach civil Court, nor could it have issued a direction to Hyderabad Cricket Association to curtail the rights of a full member that Petitioner had been exercising for several decades. It is inconceivable that Ombudsman having found that no case was made out by Respondent No. 3, went ahead and issued a direction to Petitioner to approach civil Court and restricted its rights in the interregnum by issuing a direction to Respondent No. 2. Petitioner could not have been made to suffer the consequence of Respondent No. 3 not being able to establish his case. Therefore, the direction issued by the Ombudsman is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. 17. Reliance placed on the judgment in Nalgonda District Cricket Association case (supra) is misplaced, inasmuch as that decision is clearly distinguishable on facts; the Ombudsman in that case having exercised jurisdiction and rendered a detailed, cogent, reasoned decision supported with evidence, which was treated as analogous to an arbitral award and, on that footing, held not amenable to writ interference, in contradistinction, the instant matter involves a complete failure to exercise jurisdiction, coupled with the issuance of directions beyond authority, thereby squarely warranting exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, this Court rejects the ground of maintainability raised by Respondent No. 2 and holds that Writ Petition is maintainable. 18. POINT (ii) : As can be seen from the record, the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club is the club formed by employees of the Commercial Taxes Department, with its governing body nominated on a rotational basis amongst employee-players residing in Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and managed by non-gazetted officers. Pursuant to Article 12 of its Bylaws, which governs qualifications for election as office bearers and stipulates that no person shall be eligible unless an employee of the Commercial Taxes Department and a member of either the AP Commercial Taxes Non-Gazetted Officers' Association, Hyderabad, or the APCT Gazetted Officers' Association. Article 12 is reproduced hereunder: " Article 12. QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AS OFFICE BEARER: 1) No person shall be eligible for election for any of the post of office bearer unless he is an employee of Commercial Tax Department and a member of either in The AP Commercial Taxes Non-Gazetted Officers' Association, Hyderabad or APCT Gazetted Officers' Association. 2) The office bearers shall be eligible for re-election. Note: 1) Not withstanding as it contained in Article 12(1) one can become office bearer temporarily with the approval of The APCTNGOs' Association if it is other than employee for the period specified. 2) Any office bearer who fails to attend 3 consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee shall forego his membership unless such absence is due to valid reasons and with the prior approval of the President." 19. It can be further seen from record that administration of Commercial Taxes Cricket Club was temporarily entrusted to the body led by B. Susheel Kumar Semwal, invoking the proviso to Article 12(1), vide letter dated 30.11.2024 addressed to the Telangana Commercial Taxes NGOs Association Hyderabad, with formal permission duly granted vide Association's reply letter dated 07.12.2024, for the period from 07.12.2024 to 06.12.2025 or until resolution of legal issues, whichever is earlier. Upon expiry of the said period, the said body duly handed over charge to Petitioner's Secretary, Shaik Jalaluddin vide letter dated 06.12.2025, thereby restoring the erstwhile office bearers in strict conformity with the Bylaws. 20. Upon expiry of the said period, the said body duly handed over charge to Petitioner's Secretary, Shaik Jalaluddin vide letter dated 06.12.2025, thereby restoring the erstwhile office bearers in strict conformity with the Bylaws. 20. Even though as per Article 12 of Petitioner's byelaws, non-employees of Commercial Taxes Department can be part of the administration, since the body has now reverted back to the Committee headed by Shaik Jalaluddin and presently all the members are employees of the Commercial Taxes Department, the discussion in this regard would be purely academic. Therefore, since it is brought on record and not disputed by Respondents that the club is now being administered and managed by Shaik Jalaluddin as Secretary and that all the members are employees of Commercial Taxes Department working in the twin-cities, the objection raised by Respondent No. 3 no longer holds good. Therefore, this Court holds that writ is maintainable and there is no prohibition as per byelaws, rules and regulations of the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club to file the present Writ Petition. 21. POINT (iii) : As has been held in the preceding paragraphs, once the Ombudsman expressly declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, it could not have simultaneously directed Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to approach civil Court nor could it have issued a direction to HCA to curtail the rights of a full member that Petitioner had been exercising for several decades. It is inconceivable that Ombudsman having found that no case was made out by Respondent No. 3, went ahead and issued a direction to Petitioner to approach civil Court and restricted its rights in the interregnum. Petitioner could not have been made to suffer the consequence of Respondent No. 3 not being able to establish his case. Therefore, the direction issued by the Ombudsman is wholly arbitrary and an unsustainable and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 22. Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025 is therefore, allowed and the direction given by the Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Additional Charge in Case No. 6 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024, at Para No. 7, directing both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to approach civil Court is set aside and the said direction is confined only to Respondent No. 3 who was Petitioner before the Ombudsman. 23. 23. Further, since it is borne out by record that Petitioner has been exercising rights of full member from 1987 onwards till passing of the Order by the Ombudsman and that Respondent No. 3 failed to produce a single document showing his right, interest or entitlement in the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club, the direction of the Ombudsman i.e. ‘Pending the settlement of the disputes with regard to the ownership of the Clubs in the appropriate Court of Law, the 2 nd Respondent/HCA cannot entertain the claims of both the parties’, is also set aside and Respondent No. 2 is directed to continue to recognize Petitioner as a full member of HCA and extend all the benefits to it till such time Respondent No. 3 approaches the competent civil Court and obtains Orders to the contrary. In view of allowing Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025, no orders are required to be passed in Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025, therefore, the same is closed. 24. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.