Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
District Cricket Association vs Deputy Registrar on 7 March, 2019
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 4858/2019
1. District Cricket Association, Sawaimadhopur Having
Address Opposite Girls School, Gangapur City,
Sawaimadhopur Through Its Secretary Deepak Raj.
2. Deepak Raj S/o Shri Giriraj Prasad, Aged About 40 Years,
Secretary, District Cricket Association, Sawaimadhopur,
Opposite Girls School, Gangapur City, Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Cum Registrar
Institution, Sawaimadhopur.
2. Ravindra Kumar Goyal, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies Cum Registrar Institution, Sawaimadhopur.
3. Dr. Sumit Garg, R/o Garg Hospital And Research Centre,
Near Bhairu Darwaja, City Sawaimadhopur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
07/03/2019
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the notice dt.25.02.2019 (Annex.-1) issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies-cum- Registrar Institution, Sawaimadhopur-respondent No.1.
The petitioners have pleaded in their petition that in the year 2012 elections took place on 16.09.2012 of the Executive Body of District Cricket Association, Sawaimadhopur and one Rajesh Gupta was elected as the Secretary and after the election certificate of (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM) (2 of 8) [CW-4858/2019] affiliation was duly given by the Rajasthan Cricket Association on 17.09.2012.
The petitioners have pleaded that election to the association was challenged by one person namely Bal Krishan Upadhayay claiming himself to be the Secretary of DCA Sawaimadhopur by filing a Civil Suit bearing No.39/2012 seeking declaration and direction and proceedings of election dt.16.09.2012, to be set aside.
The petitioners have pleaded that initially temporary injunction was granted vide order dt.03.07.2013 by the trial Court and the said order was set aside in appeal by the District Judge vide order dt.27.09.2013. The petitioners have further pleaded that the said Civil Suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed denying liberty to file another suit in respect of subject matter.
The petitioners have pleaded that the elections of Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) were held in the year 2013 and objections were filed in the matter of representation from District Cricket Association, Sawaimadhopur by one Shri Bal Krishan Upadhayay again claiming himself to be a Secretary of District Cricket Association and objections were rejected vide order dt.05.12.2013 and as such the objections were decided under the supervision of former Judge of Supreme Court of India and former Judge of High Court who were appointed as Principal Observer and Observer respectively to conduct the elections of Rajasthan Cricket Association.
The petitioners have pleaded that in the year 2016 again elections took place of District Cricket Association, Sawaimadhopur on 21.08.2016 and accordingly the affiliation (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM) (3 of 8) [CW-4858/2019] certificate dt.17.09.2016 was issued by the Rajasthan Cricket Association.
The petitioners have pleaded that before elections could took place again in the year 2016, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by one Bal Krishan Upadhayay and ad-interim prayer was rejected vide order dt.20.08.2016 and finally the application filed under Section 9 was dismissed vide order dt.29.02.2017.
The petitioners have pleaded that in the year 2017 the elections of Rajasthan Cricket Association was again held and the claim of Bal Krishan Upadhayay was rejected by the Ombudsman of Rajasthan Cricket Association. The petitioners have pleaded that after the order of District Court granting approval to the executive, elected on 21.08.2016, the approval was granted by order dt.17.07.2017 by the respondent No.1 and the complaint which was filed by Bal Krishan Upadhayay was also closed by order dt.24.04.2018.
It is pleaded that the association of the petitioners was eligible for grant of affiliation and as such the Rajasthan State Sports Council granted affiliation vide order dt.29.05.2018 and further certificate was also issued on 12.06.2018.
The petitioners have pleaded that some paper elections were said to have been conducted in the year 2018 and one Dr. Sumit Garg was elected as Secretary and position of respondent No.3- Sumit Garg cannot be better than one Bal Krishan Upadhayay, who had earlier filed several litigation and no relief was granted to him.
The petitioners have assailed the notice dt.25.02.2019 by raising question of jurisdiction of the Registrar to issue such order. (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM)
(4 of 8) [CW-4858/2019] Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Registrar by impunged notice has exercised power provided under Section 23 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005.
Learned counsel has submitted that Chapter-VI of the Sports Act, 2005 deals with the disaffiliation, inquiry and disqualification and disaffiliation and ground for disqualification, are provided under Section 21 & 22 respectively.
Learned counsel has submitted that the Registrar can hold any enquiry only in respect of disqualification which can be as per grounds provided under Section 22 of the Sports Act, 2005.
Learned counsel has submitted that Sports Association can be liable to action with regard to disqualification on the grounds which have been enumerated in Section 22 and as per Section 22(b) if the Sports Association fails to hold elections in accordance with its bye-laws or as per provisions of Chapter-VII, the same can be a disqualification and in the present case while issuing the notice under Section 23 none of the grounds were available enumerated under Section 22 for terming the action of the petitioners rendering them disqualification.
Learned counsel has submitted that the Registrar if at all wanted to have information by a show cause-notice, there is power in Chapter-V of calling records and inspection and as per Section 20 of the Sports Act, 2005, the Registrar has power to call for any record of a Sports Association required for an enquiry under the Sports Act.
Learned counsel has submitted that Chapter-V specifically deals with the situations where the Registrar can exercise power (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM) (5 of 8) [CW-4858/2019] and inspect the record, however invoking power under Section 23 of Chapter-VI, where the procedure for disqualification is provided, the Registrar cannot misuse his power under the garb of issuing the notice under Section 23 of the Act, 2005.
Learned counsel has further submitted that if at all information is sought with regard to having alleged two parallel associations, the said dispute can always be resolved by way of settlement of dispute as per Section 16 of the Sports Act, 2005.
Learned counsel has submitted that Chapter-V of the Act of 2005 provides under Section 16 that if any dispute arises touching the constitution, management, activity, election of any Sports Association, the same can be resolved through conciliation and arbitration.
Learned counsel has further argued that in the wake judicial pronouncement by different Courts, the Registrar cannot use power to review judicial orders. Learned counsel has submitted that by issuing a show cause-notice, the Registrar has tried to overreach to give its own finding to decide the matter which was already been decided by the Courts of law. Learned counsel has further argued that without there being any allegation under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Sports Act, the very issuance of show cause-notice is without jurisdiction.
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of [Rajasthan Tennis Association through Its President Vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Societies & Ors.] reported in 2008(3) WLN 116(Raj.). Learned counsel on the strength of said judgment, has submitted that an order for conducing an enquiry (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM) (6 of 8) [CW-4858/2019] under Section 23 must specify the points in respect of which the enquiry is to be made.
Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 23 read with Rule 8 do not contemplate a roving and fishing inquiry to be held by the Registrar or his nominee and the Registrar has to apply his mind and he has to form independent an opinion to conduct enquiry under Section 23 of the Act of 2005.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of [Union of India Vs. K.M. Shankarappa] reported in (2001) 1 SCC 582. Learned counsel on the basis of said judgment has submitted that the power to set aside the judicial orders is not vested in the executive authorities and over the judicial orders, the executive authorities should not be allowed to overturn the orders passed by such judicial authorities.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that impugned show cause-notice which is challenged in the present petition has sought certain information from the petitioners. The relevant portion of show cause-notice is reproduced hereunder:-
"vr% jktLFkku dzhMk vf/kfu;e 2005 dh /kkjk 23¼1½¼x½ dh 'kfDr;ksa ,oa jktLFkku [ksy fu;e 2004 ds fu;e 8¼1½¼x½ ds vuqlkj fuEukafdr tkap fcUnq ij tkap nksuks i{kks dks leku :i ls lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq;s lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 07-03-2019 dks izkr% 11-30 cts dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksdj e; ewy nLrkost@lcwr viuk i+{k izLrqr djsA
1. ftyk fdzdsV la?k] lokbZek/kksiqj ds iath;u ds le; xfBr la?k o mldh dk;Zdkj.kh dh orZeku oS/kkfud fLFkfr D;k gSA
2. D;k ftyk fdzdsV la?k esa gq;s pquko fofHkUu nks lekukUrj dk;Zdkfj.kh;ksa }kjk djk;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS es ls ftyk la?k ds iathd`r fo/kku] jktLFkku [ksy vf/kfu;e 2005 o jktLFkku [ksy fu;e 2004 ds vuqlkj fdl dk;Zdkfj.kh }kjk oS/k pquko djk;s x;s gSA (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM) (7 of 8) [CW-4858/2019]
3. ftyk fdzdsV la?k lokbZek/kksiqj dh lnL; izkFkfed bdkbZ;ks dh okLrfod fLFkfr D;k gS vksj D;k iath;u ds le; xfBr la?k } kjk lnL; cukus vFkok de djus esa jktLFkku [ksy vf/kfu;e 2005 dh /kkjk 9 dh ikyuk dh xbZ gS ;k ughA
4. jktLFkku [ksy la?k }kjk nks lekukUrj ftyk la?kksa dks le; le; ij tkjh lEc}rk izek.k i= fdl vk/kkj ij tkjh fd;s x;s o mlls jktLFkku [ksy vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr iathd`r la?k ds izfrfuf/kRo vf/kdkjksa ij D;k foifjr izHkko iMk gSsA
5. D;k fdlh l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk ftyk fdzdsV la?k lokbZek/ksiqj ds fdlh ,d xqV ds i{k esa dksbZ ,slk fu.kZ; @vkns'k ikfjr dj j[kk gS ftlls fd mls iathd`r ftyk fdzdsV la?k lokbZek/kksiqj dk fof/kd izfrfuf/kRo djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gqvk gksA
6. lokbZek/kksiqj ftys es lfdz; nks lekukUrj dk;Zdkfj.kh esa ls fdl dk;Zdkfj.kh dks bl dk;kZy; ls iathd`r ftyk fdzdsV la?k dk izfrfuf/kRo djus dk fof/kd vf/kdkj izkIr gSA ;g uksfVl vkt fnukad 25-02-2019 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa dk;kZy; dh eqnzk lfgr tkjh fd;k x;kA"
This Court finds that if the Registrar on his own motion has sought certain information from the petitioners with respect to affiliation/constitution of the elected body and other information relating to registration of primary units as per Section of the Act of 2005 and further the information with regard to orders which have been passed by the different Courts, this Court cannot term the said notice to be wholly without jurisdiction or Registrar having no competence to issue such notice. The show cause-notice which has been given to the petitioners can always be issued for eliciting information, which has been sought, and only by issuance of notice under Section 23, it cannot be said that the Registrar or respondents are determined to disqualify the petitioners association.
This Court further finds that the dispute with regard to elections which have taken place in past is not the subject matter by which the Registrar has sought information or he intends to overturn the judgment which has been passed by the competent (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM) (8 of 8) [CW-4858/2019] Court. The information which is sought by way of show cause- notice in no way affect rights of the petitioners at this juncture and as such the show cause-notice cannot be faulted on the ground that the Registrar has invoked power under Section 23 of the Act for conducing the inquiry.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court has laid down the law in the case of Rajasthan Tennis Association through its President Vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Societies & Ors. (supra), that Section 23 read with Rule 8 do not contemplate a roving and fishing inquiry to be held by the Registrar or his nominee, this Court finds that in the present case by issuing show cause-notice no opinion is formed and only information has been sought from the petitioners association with regard to certain elections which are said to be complained of.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Apex Court has not approved power of the executive authorities to nullify a judicial verdict, this Court finds that by issuing the notice to the petitioners, the Registrar has not formed any opinion or he has not flouted any order passed from time to time by different Courts. It goes without saying that the petitioners if have orders in their favour, passed by the competent Courts/authorities, they can always place the same before the Registrar who has issued the show cause-notice.
This Court does not find any force in the instant petition and the same is dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J A.Kumar/109 (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 02:42:19 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)