Ext.P2 order dated 30.7.2013, by which the second respondent, who has duly declared the election of the office bearers of the petitioner, has refused to recognise the petitioner as a registered Sports Organisation on the ground that they did not comply with the direction in Circular No.G.O.(P) No.2/2012 dated 2.3.2012, as well as Ext.P4 letter dated 22.7.2013 issued by the third respondent to the second respondent which discloses that an adhoc committee consisting of respondents 5 to 9 was constituted making them a state representative of the third respondent are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner alleges that it is a recognised sports organisation defined under Section 2(xii) of the Sports Act, 2000 and the second respondent, who has duly declared the election of the office bearers of the petitioner, is refusing to recognise this registered sports organization and on the contrary has proceeded to recognise a totally unauthorised and illegal body as the registered sports organisation wherein respondents 5 to 9 are styled as adhoc committee members. The petitioner alleges that the stand of the second respondent in Ext.P2 is incorrect since the petitioner is already having affiliation of the third respondent and no orders of disaffiliation against the petitioner has been passed by the third respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 is illegal and unsustainable.
3. The petitioner has pointed out that earlier when it was realised by some of the members that the 4th respondent who has been holding the post of President of the petitioner for the last 12 years was trying to sabotage the election of the office bearers which otherwise was to be conducted in a democratic manner, they approached this Court for a proper conduct of annual general body meeting with Writ Petition No.15632/2013. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.7.2013 in the said case, the second respondent declared the results which did not fully recognise the committee on the ground that it did not comply with the directions in the circular amendment vide G.O.(P) No.2/2012 dated 2.3.2012. Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter received from the second respondent by the petitioner.
4. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner came to know from the newspaper report dated 28.7.2013 that the third respondent had constituted an adhoc committee consisting of respondents 5 to 9 and made them a state representative of the third respondent and further enquiry revealed that the third respondent by Ext.P4 letter dated 22.7.2013 issued to the second respondent refers to certain irregularities in the petitioners' association and that they wanted to advise the then president to constitute an adhoc committee and that fact had been intimated to the then president Sri.B.Rajan (4th respondent) vide letter No.HFI/401-404 dated 20.6.2013 and they have not received any communication from the 2nd respondent in that regard and that they, therefore, appointing respondents 5 to 9 as adhoc committee. It has been further directed that the second respondent should deal with the adhoc committee till the election of the Kerala Handball Association. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P4 is illegal and unsustainable. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
5. The 2nd respondent filed a statement contending as follows:
The annual General body meeting of Kerala Handball Association held on 30.6.2013 as per the directions of this Court dated 15.7.2013 in WPC No.15632/2013 has already been approved by the Kerala State Sports Council by its proceedings dated 30.7.2013. But in the meantime, the 3rd respondent, the apex body to which the petitioner Association is affiliated, has formed an Adhoc Committee, and had informed the council vide Ext.P4 letter.
It is also contended by the 2nd respondent that as per clause 55 of the Sports Rules, it is stated that any sports organization carrying regular activities at the state level and affiliated to National Sports Federation, Association or Board for the concerned discipline of sports having recognition of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India or having recognition of Indian Olympic Association and International Federation are eligible for the recognition by Kerala State Sports Council.
Now, since the Hand Ball Federation of India has constituted Adhoc committee in Kerala, the Kerala State Sports Council is not in a position to recognize the concerned State Association as one of the approved Sports Association as per Sports Rules, 2008. The Kerala State Sports Council has not de-recognized the concerned State Association till date nor taken any decision to recognize the Adhoc Committee formed by the 3rd respondent, Handball Federation of India.
6. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:
Writ Petition No.15632/2013 is filed with a mischievous intention to help the Secretary of the third respondent and the petitioners are acting as dolls in the hands to the third respondent. The only intention behind this writ petition is to legalize the illegal act of the Secretary in convening the annual general body meeting against the constitution of the Kerala Handball Association.
Regarding the allegation against the 4th respondent that he is trying to sabotage the election of the office bearers of the Kerala Handball Association which is proposed to be held on 30.6.2013, it was contended that the 4th respondent has not given any approval to the proposed meeting and the secretary has not sought any prior approval of the president before fixing the date for the proposed meeting. The secretary and his henchmen were trying to avoid the annual general body meeting in order to avoid the presentation of accounts of the Kerala Handball Association. The writ petition is filed with the malicious intention of getting the assistance of this Court in order to legalize the proposed meeting which is absolutely against the mandates contained in the constitution of the Kerala Handball Association.
It is further contended by the 4th respondent that earlier the secretary of the third respondent issued intimations stating that the annual general body meeting of the third respondent will be held on 26.5.2013 at 11.00 a.m. at Travancore Court, Ernakulam and accordingly, the meeting was conducted. The observer appointed by the Kerala State Sports Council along with the observer from Kerala Olympic Association was also present in the said meeting. Before the annual general body meeting, the executive committee meeting was conducted and the minutes of the previous meeting was read over by the secretary and it was passed. Thereafter the audited statement of accounts was presented by the secretary and the same was not accepted by the executive committee due to certain irregularities and huge deficits pointed out by majority members. Thereafter, it was decided to place the accounts before the general body meeting. After a break of 10 minutes, the general body meeting started at 12.15 p.m. and the meeting was presided over by the 4th respondent. As per the agenda the secretary was invited to read out the minutes of the last general body meeting and the secretary has informed the members that the minutes book was missing. As per the direction of the 4th respondent the fact of missing the minutes book was reported to the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, Kerala Sports Council, Kerala Olympic Association and Handball Federation of India. The observer of Kerala State Sports Council has filed a report before the secretary, Kerala State Sports Council stating the events occurred in the meeting held on 26.5.2013. True copy of the report filed by the observer, Kerala State Sports Council dated 5.6.2013 is produced and marked as Ext.R4 (a). The observer, Kerala Olympic Association has also filed a report dated 10.6.2013 before the President of the Kerala Olympic Association stating the incidents occurred in the meeting. True copy of the report dated 10.6.2013 submitted by the observer before the President, Kerala Olympic Association is produced and marked as Ext.R4(b). In the said report, the observer has specifically stated that as per Chapter XII clause 30(c)(ii), the Secretary shall be in-charge of all the movable and immovable properties of the Association including correspondence file, minutes book etc. and therefore, strict action should be taken against the secretary for the missing of the minutes book. The observer has further recommended for an independent enquiry regarding the missing of the minutes book.
7. Respondents 4 to 9 filed a separate counter affidavit contending as follows:
It is true that the general body meeting and consequent election of the Kerala Handball Association was held as per the directions issued by this Court. This Court as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.7.2013 directed the second respondent to declare the result of the election without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the parties concerned to pursue the matter before the civil court or such other appropriate forum.
Even prior to Ext.P1 judgment, complaints had been sent to 2nd and 3rd respondents regarding financial misappropriation of funds received as grant for the conduct of various state championships and coaching camps. A true copy of the complaint dated 15.2.2013 submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent is produced and marked as Ext.R4(a). The financial transactions were dealt with by the Secretary and the Treasurer. Yet another complaint was submitted before the 3rd respondent regarding the malfunctioning of the petitioner Association. A true copy of the complaint dated 19.6.2013 submitted by the 4th respondent before the third respondent is produced and marked as Ext.R4(b). The annual general body meeting of the petitioner association was held on 26.5.2013. Observers from the 2nd respondent and the Kerala Olympic Association were also present in the general body meeting. The observers from the 2nd respondent and the Kerala Olympic Association were also present in the general body meeting. The observers had also submitted reports to the 2nd respondent regarding the conduct of the annual general body meeting. A true copy of the report dated 5.6.2013 submitted by the observer of the 2nd respondent before the 2nd respondent is produced and marked as Ext.R4(c). Based on the above, the 3rd respondent by letter dated 20.6.2013 had stated about the circumstances leading to the formation of an adhoc committee. A true copy of the letter issued by the 3rd respondent dated 20.6.2013 is produced and marked as Ext.R4(d). All the above had led to the formation of an adhoc committee by the third respondent. The members of the committee are respondents 5 to 9. The 4th respondent is a former national handball player and a former umpire. The 5th respondent is a former national handball player and the Dean of the Kerala University, Department of Sports. The 6th respondent is the Joint Secretary of the Handball Federation of India. The 7th respondent is a member of the Kerala State sports Council. The 8th respondent is a representative of the Kerala Olympic Association and a former national player. The 9th respondent is a former national player, an international handball umpire and a coach of the Indian Handball team. The present President of the petitioner is a business man having no connection with handball. The secretary of the petitioner Association is working as a Physical Education Teacher and the treasurer is aged 74 years and has not represented the State in Handball. The ad-hoc committee was formed in the best interest of the game of handball in Kerala and not for any other purpose.
The adhoc committee was appointed due to the malfunctioning of the petitioner association and is not intended to overthrow an elected committee. The address of the present Association shown in the writ petition is the residential address of Sri.J.Fernandez, the former Secretary of the Association. All the communications addressed to the Association are seen by the former Secretary. This shows that the petitioner Association is managed by the former Secretary who had committed financial irregularities. Financial aids from the 2nd respondent were received and misappropriated by the petitioner Association. In the selection process also the petitioner had shown favouritism. As per the Constitution of the Handball Federation of India, yearly subscription has to be paid on or before 30th June of every year. But the petitioner has not remitted the yearly subscription for the last ten years. If the same is not paid on or before the said date, the recognition granted to the Association will be cancelled as per the Constitution. The present Association is a stooge at the hands of the former Secretary against whom this respondent had initiated several complaints. This respondent does not intend to contest the election in the petitioner Association.
8. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent, the learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9.
9. The petitioner association is aggrieved by the stand taken by the second respondent who duly declared the office bearers of the petitioner in refusing to recognize it as a registered sports organization and the action of the second respondent in forming an adhoc committee. The stand taken by respondents 4 to 9 is that the adhoc committee was formed in the best interest of the game of handball in Kerala and not for any other purpose.
10. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P4 is illegal for three reasons. Firstly, it was pointed out that the then president Sri.B.Rajan was the 4th respondent in the former writ petition WPC No.15632/2013 which culminated in Ext.P1 judgment wherein he had filed a counter affidavit dated 25.6.2013 stating that there is no intention and it is not possible for the 4th respondent, in which the third respondent is holding the post of Treasurer by virtue of his nomination from the petitioner's organisation, to appoint an adhoc committee in the place of the then existing executive committee. The second respondent did not make any reference about such a communication till 15.7.2013 when Ext.P1 judgment was passed. Therefore, it was argued that Ext.P4 was a concocted document created after the defeat of Sri.B.Rajan on 30.6.2013 or even after the passing of Ext.P1 judgment. The learned senior counsel points out that had there been any such communication dated 20.6.2013, as mentioned in Ext.P4, it could not have escaped the notice of the 2nd and 4th respondents.
11. The second reason pointed out by the senior counsel against the legality of Ext.P4 is that even if it is found that Ext.P4 was in fact issued, the same has become infructuous in view of the fact that a valid election was held on 30.6.2013 and a new committee has been elected and that the result has been declared by the Sports Council.
12. The third reason pointed out by the learned senior counsel is that even going by the bye-laws of the third respondent the decision of the appointment of an ad hoc committee could have been made by the executive committee in which treasurer is one of the members and that the action of the executive committee is subject to an appeal to the general council. It was pointed out that in the instant case, no order disaffiliating the petitioner has been served and an adhoc committee has been appointed behind their back. This, according to the learned senior counsel is in violation of all the norms of the constitution of the third respondent.
13. The learned counsel for third respondent as well as the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 would argue that the adhoc committee was appointed due to the malfunctioning of the petitioner association and it is not intended to overthrow an elected committee. It was argued that from the address of the present association shown in the writ petition which is the residential address of one J.Fernandez who was the former Secretary of the association would reveal that the petitioner association is managed by the former secretary who has committed financial irregularity. The learned counsel would ague that financial aids from the 2nd respondent were received and misappropriated by the petitioner Association and in the selection process also, the petitioner had shown favoritism. Though it is clear that yearly subscription has to be paid on or before 30th June of every year as per the Constitution of the Handball Federation of India, the petitioner has not remitted the yearly subscription for last 10 years. Therefore, it was pointed out that on account of the same, the recognition granted to the association would stand cancelled as per the constitution. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, per contra, inviting my attention to Ext.R4(a) produced by the 4th respondent argued that the same would speak volumes about the malafide intention to upset the functioning of a democratically elected executive committee. The learned senior counsel denied the allegation that the present association is a stooge at the hands of the former secretary. It was argued that the alleged default in the repayment of yearly subscription was never informed to the executive committee through any communication till date. Though the 4th respondent was serving as the treasurer of the third respondent from 2011 onwards, it is understood by the petitioner that the previous committee had remitted Rs.4000/- even before 30.6.2013 to the Hand Ball Federation of India and the same has been duly received by them. When the present committee, after assumption of office, has came to know from the records available that there was an inadvertent omission to remit the annual subscription. Yet another sum of Rs.16,000/- was also remitted as evidenced by Ext.P6 and the same also has not been rejected by the third respondent till date. Therefore, it was pointed out that the 4th respondent could not have been elected as Treasurer of the 4th respondent in the year 2011 had the state unit been de-affiliated for the failure to pay annual subscription for the last 10 years, as alleged. Ext.P4 order makes a reference to a letter dated 20.6.2013 which is produced as Ext.R4(a) along with the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would point out that after the alleged issue of Ext.R4(a), the entire matter was considered by this Court and it was after hearing the 4th respondent also that the interim order dated 27.6.2013 permitting the elections in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court and Ext.P1 judgment was passed. Therefore, it was argued that even assuming that Ext.R4(a) and Ext.P4 were in existence, they have become infructuous and unenforceable in view of Ext.P1 judgment. I see valid force in the said submission.
14. The learned senior counsel also invited my attention to Ext.P8 also. Ext.P8 is a certificate issued by the third respondent granting recognition to the petitioner in the year 2008 for the purpose of remitting the same before the second respondent for getting necessary registration under the Kerala Sports Act 2000 and Kerala Sports Rules, 2008. It was pointed out that neither the bylaw of the third respondent nor the relevant statutes require renovation of an affiliation periodically. It was also pointed out that Ext.P7 confirms that the petitioner was accepted by the Hand Ball Federation of India as their sole representative in the State of Kerala even in April 2013.
15. It is crucial to note that the second respondent which is the Kerala Sports council who was arrayed as a party in the former writ petition, WPC No.15362/2013 did not raise any objection with regard to the registration of the petitioner and this is clear from the fact that they sent their observer to the elections held on 30.6.2013 without any demur.
16. As per clause-8 of Article No.VIII of Ext.P5, the Executive Committee shall have the authority to discontinue or suspend the affiliation of a member, if the requirements of the federation are not satisfied or in the opinion of the executive committee, a member is considered unfit to discharge its functions properly and the said action will be subject to an appeal to the council. Similarly, clause (6) of Article XI of Exhibit P5 gives power to the president to form an adhoc committee as and when required by the same shall be informed to the executive committee and got approved by it within 30 days of its issue.
17. Here, in this case, no cogent reason has been given for the alleged constitution of an adhoc committee as evidenced by Ext.P4. More over, the mandatory procedure to be followed as per Ext.P5 for de-affiliation and constitution of adhoc committees have not been followed. This, according to me, render the entire action pursuant to Ext.R4 (a) is illegal.
18. It was further argued by the learned senior counsel that Ext.R4(d) dated 20.6.2013 produced by the 4th respondent, whereby the third respondent advised the then President of the Kerala Hand Ball Association to form an adhoc committee itself, is a concocted document which was created after the election and Ext.P1 judgment. It was argued that had the communication been received by the 4th respondent who was the then President, duly nothing would have prevented him from bringing this fact at least on 15.7.2013 when Ext.P1 judgment was delivered in open court, after hearing all the parties. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P10 which is a true copy of the answer received under the Right to Information Act dated 30.10.2013 from the Sports Council of Kerala which states that the sports council received the communication dated 20.6.2013 only on 24.7.2013.
19. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9 projected the status of the members of the ad hoc committee. However, according to me, the same will not justify the constitution as the same has been constituted illegally and against the provisions of the memorandum of association. Though it was contended that the general body meeting was convened without the knowledge of the Handball Federation of India, Ext.P11 which is a true copy of the letter dated 15.6.2013 would indicate that the third respondent was intimated about the meeting dated 30.6.2013 on 15.6.2013 itself. The same was delivered to the 4th respondent on 24.6.2013 itself as evident from the track record which is produced as Ext.P11(a). The allegation regarding the non- payment of yearly subscription for more than a decade does not inspire confidence. It is most unlikely that the Handball Federation would have recognised such a “defaulter” in the year 2008 as they did through a certificate granting recognition in the year 2008 for the purpose of submitting the same before the second respondent for getting the necessary registration under the Kerala Sports Act 2000 and Kerala Sports Rules 2008. It is also crucial to note that a demand draft bearing No.565672 issued by the Vazhuthacaud Branch of State Bank of Travancore dated 25.6.2013 was drawn in the name of the third respondent for a sum of Rs.4000/- and the same was forwarded to the third respondent. Ext.P14 is the copy of the demand draft and Ext.P13 is the covering letter which was forwarded. These documents would go to show that the previous committee had remitted Rs.4000/- even before 30.6.2013 to the Handball Federation of India as directed by them in the Annual General Body meeting held at Bhilai during April 2013 and the same has been duly received by them. Ext.P14 reveals that the same was delivered to the 4th respondent on 29.6.2013 itself.
On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. Ext.P2 to the extent it refuses to grant registration to the petitioner under the Kerala Sports Act 2000 and Kerala Sports Rules 2008 is also quashed.
It is hereby ordered that the petitioner represented by the committee declared elected as per Ext.P2 is entitled to be recognised as a recognised Sports Organization as defined in S.2(xii) of the Sports Act, 2000 and as the member representing the state unit of the third respondent.
No costs.
sd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE