The petitioner, a Sports Association registered under the Travancore Literary, Charitable & Scientific Societies Act, 1955, has approached this Court for declaring that its registration is legally liable to be retained and for quashing Exts.P9 and P10, by which the registration granted to the petitioner was cancelled temporarily and registration was granted to the 2nd respondent Association.
2. The petitioner Association alleges that they are recognized by the Sports Council and had been working in the field of hockey for the last 57 years and conducting championship, selecting the State team for the Nationals and working for the betterment of the game of hockey. They would contend that the 1st respondent illegally terminated the registration of the petitioner and granted registration to the 2nd respondent, which is an ineligible Association purely on political dictates. According to the petitioner, this was done on several occasions and on all those occasions, this Court had interfered with the same. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P6 was issued calling for explanation and production of documents; and when Ext.P7 was given, the 2nd respondent insisted that the documents issued after June, 2012, alone could be accepted. The petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No.19627/2012, wherein one month time was granted. Later, the petitioner filed an application for extension of time for three weeks, which was objected to by the 1st respondent. Then, Exts.P9 and P10 were issued even before producing documents in the writ petition; so alleges, the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Exts.P9 and P10 were issued on extraneous consideration and political dictates.
3. The stand taken by the 1st respondent is that the apex court has reckoned the Hockey India as the competent body at the national level, to which the 2nd respondent stands affiliated, whereas the Indian Hockey Federation, to which the petitioner is stated as affiliated, does not enjoy the said status. Therefore, the matter was considered and a decision was taken, whereby the registration of the petitioner was cancelled; according to the 1st respondent.
4. The 2nd respondent also filed counter affidavit along the aforesaid lines.
5. Originally, there were only two respondents.
However, subsequently, the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, the Indian Olympic Association, the Indian Hockey Federation and the Hockey India were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 6.
6. Arguments have been heard.
7. The petitioner Association was having recognition of the Ministry; and on the basis of the same, registration was given by the 1st respondent. The registration was being renewed periodically. The latest certificate of the same is produced as Ext.P1 dated 02.02.2011. The issues arose when steps were taken to give recognition to the 2nd respondent and to similar Associations as well. The proceedings were intercepted by this Court at the instance of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the relevant rules were amended as per Ext.P16 notification dated 17.03.2012, whereby norms for registration were stayed. Admittedly, the said notification is under challenge in another writ petition. Ext.P6 was issued by the 1st respondent on 04.08.2012 asking for production of documents The petitioner sought time; and subsequently, due to non-production of the same, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled.
8. Much water has flown after the filing of this writ petition as evident from Ext.R2(o) dated 28.02.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports. It was produced by the 2nd respondent herein along with a verified petition. By Ext.R2(o), the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports has ordered that the Hockey India (6th respondent) satisfies all the conditions laid down for recognition; and therefore, the 6th respondent be confirmed and endorsed as the Central Authority responsible for all matters relating to hockey in India.
9. The Indian Hockey Federation, to which the petitioner Association was affiliated, loses its recognition on the basis of Ext.R2(o). Therefore, the petitioner loses its right to have any of the remedies as prayed for in this writ petition. Evidently, and admittedly too, the 2nd respondent Association is affiliated to the Hockey India, which is now being recognized by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.R2(o). Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.R2(o) cannot be admitted in evidence as it was not supported by an affidavit, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent has admitted the issuance of Ext.R2(o). Though it was further argued that the 2nd respondent is only an associate member of the Hockey India (the 6th respondent), it is not within the domain of consideration of this Court as far as this writ petition is concerned. The only question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition, is whether the petitioner, who claims to have affiliation with the Indian Hockey Federation, has the right to claim the relief as prayed for.
As the Indian Hockey Federation, to which the petitioner has got affiliation, has lost its recognition of the 3rd respondent, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-