Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Shobha Singh vs Raj State Sports Council&Ors; on 4 December, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12659/2016
Dr. Shobha Singh Wife of Shri Tejveer Singh, Aged About 59 Years, 31,
Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur-321001, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Sports Council, Through Its Secretary, Sawai Mansingh
Stadium, Jaipur
2. Hockey Rajasthan, Through Its Acting Secretary Smt. Divya Pradhan, D-
122, Birla Shishu Vihar, Vidya Vihar Campus, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan
3. Rajasthan State Olympic Association, Through Its Secretary General, 2,
Aakansha Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302021
4. Hockey India, Through Its Secretary, B1/E3, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-
operative Industrial Esate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
5. The Principal Secretary, Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur
----Defendant-Respondents
Date of Order: December 04, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Shailesh P. Sharma, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Bhojak, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Angad Mirdha, for respondent No.4.
Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, for respondent No.1.
BY THE COURT:
Admittedly the petition entails a dispute between the office bearers of Hockey Rajasthan, a registered Society, which is regulated by its Bye-laws.
2
The Delhi High Court in the case of Jagjit Singh Sangwan vs. Union of India 1996(36) DRJ 192 has held that the Bye-laws of a Society are only meant for the internal management of the Society and effectively a contract between the members of the Society. Such bye-laws do not have the force of law, and the mere fact of their approval by the Government is of little consequence. Such approval does not entail a matter of contract being rendered a matter of law made by legislature. The bye-laws therefore cannot be enforced in the exercise of writ jurisdiction nor their breach impugned under that jurisdiction.
Aside of aforesaid, Mr. Ravi Bhojak and Mr. Angad Mirdha counsel for respondents submitted that Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereafter `the Act of 2005') provides that any dispute inter alia touching the constitution, management activity, election or claim to affiliation of any Sports Association, same shall be resolved through conciliation and arbitration. And the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the Act of 1996') is to apply to such conciliation and arbitration proceedings. It was submitted that a bare look at the prayer clause of the writ petition indicates that it relates to the AGM of Hockey Rajasthan and passing of resolutions. These acts comes within the words of "management activity". The disputes are therefore amenable to arbitration under the Act of 1996. Therefore the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Act of 1996. Besides of prohibition from interference in arbitrable matters by the courts under Section 5 thereof is also operative, they submitted. Reference has been made to the judgment in the case of Empire Jute Company 3 Limited Vs. Jute Corporation of India Limited [(2007)14 SCC 680].
Mr. Jai Raj Tantia submitted that the present petition is a mere camouflage to lay a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the resolution of AGM of respondent Hockey Rajasthan, for which the Rajasthan State Sports Council has been impleaded without any cause of action arising against it or relief against it being sought.
Heard. Considered.
For reason of the multiple objections raised i.e. as to availability of the alternative remedy of arbitration and conciliation under the Act of 1996 to the petition, the respondent Hockey Rajasthan not falling within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and its actions not being open to challenge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and no relief being claimed against the Rajasthan State Sports Council, impleaded only with the intent of camouflaging the petition as maintainable which otherwise is not, I am not inclined to entertain the petition.
The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 4 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.