Karnataka High Court
Mr S Padmanabhan vs Bangalore Turf Club Ltd on 14 July, 2023
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:24462
WP No. 12491 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 12491 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR S PADMANABHAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
TRAINER, BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD.,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001. INDIA
RESIDENCE 178/E, A.E.C.S LAYOUT,
1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 094. INDIA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. T S SURESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD.,
by SHARADA RACE COURSE ROAD,
VANI B
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND
KARNATAKA CEO. MR.KRIAN M K.,
A COMPANY PVT LIMITED -
UNDER COMPANIES ACT,1956.
2. APPEAL BOARD
BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD.,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
MR. SHIVAKUMAR KENNY.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:24462
WP No. 12491 of 2023
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA.,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF FINANCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S S NAGANAND., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
MRS. ASHWINI N. RAVINDRA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASHING ORDERS DTD 29.05.2023 (ATTACHED AS ANNX-A
AND A-1) WITH RESPECT TO CHARGESHEET NO. 810 AND 812
BOTH DTD 27/02/2023 PASSED BY THE BOARD OF APPEAL AS
WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE STEWARDS DTD 10.04.2023
(ATTACHED AS ANNX-L) AND 08.05.2023 (ATTACHED AS
ANNX-K) WITH RESPECT TO CAHRGESHEETS NO. 810 DTD
27/02/2023 (ATACHED AS ANNX-B) AND 812 DTD
27/02/2023( ATTACHED AS ANNX-C) FOR BEING ILLEGAL
ISSUED MALA FIDE PASSED VINDICTIVELY WITHOUT ANY
APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE
LAW PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY TO ALL
MECHANICAL AND MISAPPLICATION OF THE RULES
MOTIVATED BY BIAS INCLUDING BY NOT LIMITED TO
BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD RULED OF RACING AND
MEDICATION RULES AND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE
BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS DEFENCE AND APPEAL
STATEMENTS
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following prayer:
"a) Issue Writ, Order or direction quashing Orders dated 29.05.2023 (attached as Annexure-
A and Annexure-A1) with respect to chargesheets Nos. 810 and 812 both dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Board of Appeal as well -3- NC: 2023:KHC:24462 WP No. 12491 of 2023 as the Orders of the Stewards dated 10.04.2023 (attached as Annexure-L) and 08.05.2023 (attached as Annexure-K) with respect to chargesheet No. 810 dated 27/02/2023 (attached as Annexure-B) and 812 dated 27/02/2023 ( attached as Annexure-C) for being illegal issued mala fide passed vindictively without any application of mind and in blatant violation of the law principles of natural justice by to all mechanical and misapplication of the rules motivated by bias including by not limited to Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., Rules of racing and Medication Rules and ignoring the submissions made by the petitioner in his Defence and Appeal Statements."
2. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.S.S.Naganand appearing for the Respondent No.1-Bangalore Turf Club, opposes the petition on the preliminary ground of maintainability contending that his client is only an incorporated company and it does not answer the definition of 'State' u/a 12 of the Constitution, as has been so held by this court itself in VEENA HARISH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 4252: (2019) 2 KCCR 1027. He points that the Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in PESI SHROFF vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, AIR 1993 Bom 384 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in HYDER ALI KHAN vs. REGISTRAR OF -4- NC: 2023:KHC:24462 WP No. 12491 of 2023 COMPANIES, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 344. Even otherwise, he submits, because of disputed questions of facts, the writ jurisdiction is not suitable for adjudication of the lis in question.
3. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner submits that the Managing Committee of the respondent-Club comprises of nominees of the government and that the bye-laws to be effective or to be amended need the consent of the government; there are four nominees of the government appointed ex officio on the Board of Management of the Club and thus, the government exercises pervasive control over the affairs of management; he also points outs that the Club conducts its business on a huge land given by the State Government in the heart of the city and therefore, it is an instrumentality of the State. Once it is found to be an instrumentality, Mr.Holla contends, all its actions are liable to suffer judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, he banks upon a Coordinate Bench decision of this court in BANGALORE -5- NC: 2023:KHC:24462 WP No. 12491 of 2023 TURF CLUB vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, MANU/KA/0073/2021.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter on the ground of maintainability of the petition and also availability of alternate remedy. In VEENA supra, this court having considered similar contentions as have been pressed into service by Mr.Holla, did not agree that the 1st respondent-Club is an instrumentality of the State u/a 12. Similar view is taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in an almost identical fact matrix in PESI SHROFF supra and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in HYDER ALI KHAN supra.
5. The decision of Coordinate Bench of this court cited by Mr.Holla in BANGALORE TURF CLUB vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, supra, does not come to his aid. That was a case arising under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The question was whether the Club answers the inclusive definition of 'public -6- NC: 2023:KHC:24462 WP No. 12491 of 2023 authority' given in section 2(h) of the Act. The Coordinate Bench answered the question in the affirmative, is true. Merely because an entity is a 'public authority' in the said definition, one cannot hastily conclude that a fortiori, it becomes an instrumentality of the State, as rightly contended by Mr.S.S.Naganand. Arguably, an instrumentality of the State may ipso facto fit into the definition of 'public authority'; however, vice versa need not be invariably true.
6. The vehement submission of Mr.Holla that the land on which the respondent-Club carries on its activities is granted by the government and that the government has four of its nominees on the Managing Body, does not make the Club an instrumentality of the State. Nothing is pointed out from the land allotment order which permits the government to interfere in the administration of affairs of the Club; in fact, no allotment order is placed on record to found such a plea. The Managing Body comprises of 14 members, of whom, four are the officials of the government ex officio. Even if these four members gang -7- NC: 2023:KHC:24462 WP No. 12491 of 2023 up, that would not make any difference to the administrative decisions of the body, unless they are supported by others to make the section a majority. These four government officials are not shown to have any preferential right and much less the veto.
7. Mr.Naganand, learned Sr. Advocate is right in contending that the adjudication of the impugned orders needs leading of both oral & documentary evidence, which the Writ Courts are ordinarily not well suited for. There is absolutely no reason for bypassing the alternate & more efficacious remedy of suit. The impugned action is not shown to exhibit sufficient amount of public law elements as to warrant invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227. Even if, for the sake of argument, the respondent-Club is assumed to be an instrumentality of State, that per se would not make its action judicially reviewable in the absence of demonstrable sufficient public law elements vide LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs. ESCORTS LIMITED, (1986) 1 SCC 264. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:24462 WP No. 12491 of 2023 In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance elsewhere in accordance with law. It hardly needs to be stated that nothing herein above said shall be construed as constraining the claim of the petitioner for staying even the suspension order. However, it is a matter left to the domain of the civil court or such other body, to consider this aspect of the matter, as well and in that connection, all contentions are kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42