Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Hilal Ahmad Zargar And Others vs Baramulla Cricket Club And Others on 30 December, 2019
Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey, Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Supplementary List
S. No. 1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) 3653/2019
CM (7510/2019)
Caveat 2013/2019
Hilal Ahmad Zargar and others
... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate
V/s
Baramulla Cricket Club and others
... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. B. A. Bashir, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Farah Bashir, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
ORDER
30-12-2019
1. Petitioners through the medium of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek quashment of decision dated 29.10.2019 passed by nominated Ombudsman, J&K Cricket Association, Hon'ble Justice Bashir ud Din, former judge of J&K High Court in O.S. No. 09/K of 2018/11 FDBJ titled Baramulla Cricket Club versus Mr. Suhail Ahmad Zargar and others of Baramulla Cricket Club on the grounds detailed out in the petition with particular reference that the impugned decision is beyond the scope of the reference made by the Division Bench of this court in a common order in Letters Patent Appeals 196/2017, 212/2017, 213/2017, 239/2017 and 240/2017. The learned Division Bench while disposing of the appeals on 06.12.2017 had also observed that following issues arose for smoothening functioning of JKCA consistent with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherefrom no departure can be imagined nor can be permitted:
Issue No. 1 Settling of disputes primarily of the members of 12 clubs i.e. WP (C) 3653/2019 Page |2
1. Rehari Cricket Club Jammu
2. Jammu Cricket Club Jammu
3. International Cricket Club Jammu
4. Modern Cricket Club Jammu
5. Friends Cricket Club Jammu
6. Shastri Cricket Club Jammu
7. United Cricket Club Srinagar
8. Friends Cricket Club Srinagar
9. Kashmir Gymkhana Cricket Club
10. Whites Cricket Club
11. Baramulla Cricket Club
12. Muslim Cricket Club Sopore Issue No. 2: For settlement of disputes among 12 clubs and other disputes of the association, there is a requirement of appointing ombudsman. Learned single judge has given the power to the two appointed administrators to appoint an ombudsman which, in our view, is not apposite. The Administrators cannot appoint ombudsman. Ombudsman was required to be appointed by the association but in the stated background, we deem it proper to appoint ombudsman for resolving all the disputes after giving hearing to all concerned, therefore, we appoint Mr. Justice Syed Bashir ud Din (retired) as ombudsman who shall undertake the task of setting the idsputes of 12 clubs and also other disputes of the association so as to pave a way for implementing directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in line with recommendations of the Lodha Committee. The expenditure shall be at part with Administrators.
The monthly remuneration, allowances and other conditions during such term in office as an ombudsman shall be the same as that of a judge of the High Court, reduced by the amount of the pension received by him and by the portion of the commuted value of the portion of such pension, if received by him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while strengthening his claim qua the relief prayed for in the writ petition has made reference to the pleadings in the writ petition, documents attached thereto and judgments of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned passed by the ombudsman has caused great prejudice to the petitioners who claim to be the genuine members of the Baramulla Cricket Club. He submits that the petitioners are the WP (C) 3653/2019 Page |3 real and genuine members of the club and their claim has been rejected unheard without making any observation or giving any reason. He submits that the decision of the ombudsman being beyond the reference of the order of the court is not only bad in law but also against the principle of audi alteram partem.
3. Mr. B. A. Bashir, learned senior counsel appeared for the caveators.
4. Caveat discharged.
5. Mr. Bashir, learned senior counsel, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable qua the dispute amongst the private parties as the principle for maintaining a writ petition under law and Article 12 of constitution of India is not existing in the present case. He further submits that this court cannot entertain the writ petition as the subject matter of the dispute in this writ petition is already subject matter in civil appeals Nos. 4235/2014 titled Board of Control for Cricket in India and others versus Cricket Association of Bihar and others before the Supreme Court. The learned senior counsel submits that in terms of a restraint order passed by the Supreme Court on 14.3.2019, it has been directed that the no court/tribunal in India shall entertain or proceed with the any matter pertaining to BCCI or any State Cricket Association(s) involved. The portion of order dated 14.3.2019 relevant to the controversy involved in the present writ petition is extracted below:
"Till Mr. Narasimha, learned Amicus Curiae, submits a report, we consider it desirable that no court/tribunal in India shall entertain or proceed with any matter pertaining to BCCI or any State Cricket Association(s) involved."
6. The learned senior counsel states that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Supreme Court for seeking the relief or getting the order dated 14.3.2019 modified.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only valid till Mr. Narsimha, learned amicus curiae submitted a report, which report, according to him, has already been submitted and taken note of by the Apex Court on 10.5.2019. While referring to case titled Durga Hotel Complex versus RBI, (2007) 5 SCC 120, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the WP (C) 3653/2019 Page |4 ombudsman was appointed on the directions of the High Court, which was in tune with the recommendations of the Lodha Committee as accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the caveator. We have gone through the record available on the writ petition.
9. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.3.2019 in the aforesaid case has directed that no court/tribunal in India shall entertain or proceed with any matter pertaining to BCCI or any State Cricket Association(s) involved, therefore, we are of the considered view that it shall not be appropriate to entertain this petition at this stage in view of the restraint order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10.The matter is adjourned.
11.List on 10.2.2020.
(DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR) (ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
30-12-2019
N Ahmad
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
NISSAR A BHAT
2019.12.31 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document