Karnataka High Court
Mr C R Laxminarayanan vs Karnataka State Cricket Association on 6 April, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.32893 OF 2016 (S-R)
BETWEEN
MR C R LAXMINARAYANAN
SON OF LATE SRI.C.K.RAMASWAMY
AGED 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.616,
21ST MAIN, 4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GURU PRASANNA S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM
CUBBON ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
KARNATAKA STATE
CRICKET ASSOCIATION
M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM
CUBBON ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
3. MR.ASHOK ANAND P.R
MAJOR
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
-2-
PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA STATE
CRICKET ASSOCIATION
M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM
CUBBON ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
4. MR.BRIJESH PATEL
MAJOR
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE
CRICKET ASSOCIATION
M.CHINNASWAMY STADIUM
CUBBON ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2015 AT ANNEX-D OF
THE R-2 WITHHOLDING THE PENSION OF THE PETITIONER
AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO RESTORE THE PENSION OF THE
PETITIONER WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner, who is a former Cricketer, who played for the State of Karnataka in the Ranji Tournaments is before this Court aggrieved of the communication dated 21.12.2015 at Annexure-D, where the petitioner is informed that his pension is withheld. The background in which the said communication was made to the petitioner is that the petitioner along with two other persons wrote to the President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India ('BCCI' for short), vide a communication dated 01.08.2015 at Annexure-A to look into certain allegations of conflict of interest, which in fact was based on certain information provided in a book and similar allegations were also made not only against the BCCI, but also against other such State Cricket Associations/Boards, following the letter written to the President of the BCCI. One more communication was made by the petitioner along with two other persons to the President of the respondent-Karnataka State Cricket -4- Association ('KSCA', for short), vide a communication dated 09.12.2015. Similar, complaints were also raised from other quarters. Following the communications made by the petitioner, the respondent-KSCA sought to take action against the petitioner, commencing from withholding of pension of the petitioner. The petitioner was required to appear before the Association to substantiate his complaints and allegations made in the communications dated 01.08.2015 and 09.12.2015. It is not disputed that commencing from August 2015, the petitioner has not received the pension at the hands of the respondent-KSCA.
2. Learned Counsel for the respondent-KSCA raises a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the respondent-KSCA is an Association formed under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, and it is not a public entity and therefore a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be issued to the KSCA, more so, in a matter pertaining to the grievance of a -5- member of the Association. Learned Counsel for the respondent-KSCA submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding payment of pension, has no basis, since the Association does not pay any pension to its members as well as the staff working in the Association. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner seeking payment of pension is not supported by any statutory provision and therefore, the writ petition is required to be dismissed at the threshold.
3. On the merits of the matter, learned Counsel for the respondent-KSCA also made submissions with reference to the statement made in the objections filed at the hands of the KSCA. It is submitted that similar such allegation was also made by few other members of the KSCA and as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.14712/2009 and connected matters, dated 12.08.2009 followed by the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.Nos.3361-62/2009 and connected matters, dated 15.07.2010, the DRCS, held an enquiry and exonerated the KSCA of all charges. -6- Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that long after the DRCS concluded the enquiry and exonerated the KSCA of similar charges, the petitioner could not have reiterated the very same allegations. It is therefore that the Association issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before the Board to substantiate his complaints/charges made in the communications at Annexures-A and D. Till then, it was decided that pension which was hitherto paid to the petitioner shall be withheld. Learned Counsel for the respondent-KSCA seeks to place reliance on the following decisions;
1) K. K. Saksena Vs. International
Commission on Irrigation and
Drainage & Others, (2015) 4 SCC
670;
2) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs.
Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5
SCC 423 and
3) T.P.Devar Vs. Lodge Victoria , AIR
1963 SC 1144.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-KSCA
submits that it is clear from these decisions that a lis -7- between two private persons cannot be decided by the High Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel submits that it has been held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to such private individuals since it has no statutory mandate to perform a public duty. It is submitted that from the Memorandum of Association of the KSCA, it is clear that the KSCA does not perform any public duty and therefore the petitioner should be relegated to a civil court to redress his grievances. It is further argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that even if a body performs public duty and is amenable to writ jurisdiction, all its decisions are not subject to judicial review. Only in those decisions which have public element can there be judicial review under writ jurisdiction. In order to substantiate his argument, learned Counsel for the respondent-KSCA submits that the grievance of the petitioner in respect of payment of pension, is primarily not supported by any statutory -8- provisions and even if a scheme has been announced by the respondent-KSCA and if the pension which was earlier being granted to the petitioner is thereafter withheld, even then, the grievance of the petitioner is in the nature of the private litigation. Moreover, it is submitted that following the communication made by the respondent-KSCA, admittedly, the petitioner has not appeared before the Board. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to allege that no further enquiry was held and the action of the respondent-KSCA is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel submits that even earlier, during the course of these proceedings, this Court had directed the parties to sit across the table and sort out the issue. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not come forward to enable the Board to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-KSCA would further submit that till date, no writs have been -9- issued against the respondent-KSCA and if such a writ is issued, it would open a pandora's box.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board Of Control For Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association Of Bihar & Ors (2015) 3 SCC 251 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to whether the BCCI is a body discharging public functions and whether it would answer to the definition of the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel submits that while answering this question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the BCCI may not be a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution but it is certainly amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel further submits that the Memorandum of Association of KSCA is very similar to the Memorandum of Association of the BCCI. More particularly, attention of this Court is drawn -10- to Clause (l) of Regulation 4 of the Memorandum of Association. It is submitted that in the said provision, it is clearly stated that one of the objects of the Association is to hold and maintain the Laws of Cricket and the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Control for Cricket in India/Association. Moreover, it is submitted that the KSCA has similar powers and functions like the BCCI where the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the Cricket Team representing the country is selected by the BCCI. It was held that the nature of duties and functions which the BCCI performs clearly shows that the Board had a complete sway over the game of cricket in this country. It regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others. It formulates rules, regulations, norms and standards covering all aspects of the game. It enjoys the power of choosing the members of the national team and the umpires. It exercises the power of disqualifying players which may at times put an end to the sporting career of a person. It spends crores of rupees on building and -11- maintaining infrastructure like stadia, running of cricket academics and supporting State Associations. It frames pension schemes and incurs expenditure on coaches, trainers, etc. It sells broadcast and telecast rights and collects admission fee to venues where the matches are played. It was therefore held that all these activities are undertaken with the tacit concurrence of the State Government and the Government of India who are not only fully aware but supportive of the activities of the Board. The State has not chosen to bring any law or taken any other step that would either deprive or dilute the Board's monopoly in the field of cricket. On the contrary, the Government of India has allowed the Board to select the national team which is then recognized by all concerned and applauded by the entire nation including at times by the highest of the dignitaries when they win tournaments and bring laurels home.
7. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the KSCA also performs similar functions and is funded -12- by the BCCI. The players selected to the National Team are in turn forwarded by the State Cricket Associations, like KSCA. Further, when the players are selected who represent the individual states, the KSCA on its part selects the players to representing the State of Karnataka in inter-state tournaments such as Ranji Trophy, Duleep Trophy, etc.
8. On the question of whether the KSCA can be directed to pay and release the pension to the petitioner, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a communication dated 24.03.2009 made by the KSCA to all the retired Ranji Cricketers/Umpires announcing pensions to the retired Ranji Cricketers/Umpires for the year 2009-10. The communication was made consequent to a resolution passed by the Board in its 67th Annual General Body Meeting held on 18.10.2003, wherein it was resolved that a scheme be formulated by the Managing Committee for the welfare of State first class Cricketers and the amount to be expended by way of such welfare -13- measure shall not exceed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that the very fact that the impugned communication seeks to withhold the pension, makes it clear the pension was in fact being paid to the petitioner and therefore it is incorrect on the part of the learned Counsel the petitioner to contend that there is no statutory provision which would enable the petitioner to seek pension at the hands of the respondent-KSCA. Learned Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rahul Mehra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Del 837. Learned Counsel submits that the very same contentions as was put forth by the learned Counsel for the respondent was in fact put forth on behalf of the BCCI while stating that if it were held that the BCCI was amenable to writ jurisdiction, "starling and legally untenable consequences would follow". However, the Delhi High Court rejected the said contention and held that even in cases of judicial review, the High Court -14- exercises self-imposed restraints. It does not substitute its views in place of those under review. The High Court is not so much concerned with the decision itself in the sense as to whether an action is "right or wrong", but with the decision making process signifying as to whether the action is "lawful or unlawful".
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that from the material available on record including the averments made in the statement of objections, it is clear that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the respondent-KSCA could have decided to withhold the pension that was being given to the petitioner. Although, the petitioner had sought for information as to whether a decision was taken by the Board in the matter of withholding the pension, no information is made available to the petitioner. No such information is also made available to this Court along with the statement of objections. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the petitioner cannot be driven to the civil court to seek the -15- pension which has been withheld without adhering to basic principles of natural justice. No enquiry has been conducted, although it was indicated in the impugned communication dated 21.12.2015 that suitable action would be taken against the petitioner for making the allegations which would lower the image of the Association.
10. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers.
11. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board Of Control For Cricket in India (supra) it is clear that many of the functions of the respondent-KSCA are akin to the ones of the BCCI. Many of these aspects have held to be public functions, since the selection of the team representing the State of Karnataka is done by the respondent-KSCA. The players who are coached and sent to the National Team also are selected from the group of players nursed by the respondent-KSCA. The -16- KSCA is funded by the BCCI, which is evident from the provision of Memorandum of Association as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The other commercial aspect which has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board Of Control For Cricket in India (supra) is also true to a great extent in respect of the respondent-KSCA. Therefore, there cannot be any manner of doubt that even if the respondent-KSCA does not answer to the definition of "State" as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent-KSCA is indeed amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
12. On the merits of the matter, this Court has noticed that the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the action on the part of the respondent-KSCA in withholding the pension which was granted to the petitioner under a scheme formulated by KSCA. It is true that there is no statutory provision for payment of pension. Nevertheless, when it is admitted that a -17- scheme has been formulated by the KSCA to assist the former cricket players who played in the Ranji Tournament with pension and in fact the petitioner was being paid pension till August, 2015, when action was sought to be taken against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner in complaining to the President of the BCCI in the matter of conflict of interest, such argument does not hold any water.
13. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the fact that the respondent-KSCA has unilaterally decided to withhold the pension that was hitherto being granted to the petitioner. Therefore, on the face of it, it is clear that the members of the Board at the relevant point of time were not happy with the action on the part of the petitioner in making complaints to the President of the BCCI, touching upon the integrity of the members of the Board of the KSCA. If the respondent-KSCA was of the impression that the action on the part of the petitioner would amount to misconduct since it would lower the image -18- of the Association, then suitable action was required to be initiated against the petitioner in terms of the provisions of law governing the removal of a member of the Association or for imposition of any punishment in accordance with law. For this purpose, if the respondent-Association is entitled to take action, the petitioner too is entitled for protection, to the extent that the principles of natural justice were required to be followed. Although it is sought to be contended at the hands of the respondent-KSCA that the withholding of the pension is an interim measure, nevertheless, it is evident that pension has been withheld from the petitioner from August, 2015.
14. If the respondent-KSCA was fair, it should have sought for permission of this Court during the pendency of this writ petition to proceed against the petitioner in a manner known to law. Nothing in this regard has been done by the respondent-KSCA. Therefore, if an allegation is made by the petitioner -19- against the arbitrary and unilateral decision taken by the respondent-KSCA, the petitioner is well within his rights to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly held by the High Court of Delhi, in Rahul Mehra (supra) when considering such cases, this Court is not concerned about the decision itself, this Court is concerned about the manner in which the decision is taken by the respondent.
15. It is clear that the action taken by the respondent-KSCA in withholding the pension on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct in making complaints to the higher ups, the respondent- KSCA has clearly violated the basic requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner before the decision was taken to withhold the pension. Moreover, no material is placed on record to show that -20- a decision was taken by the Board for withholding the pension of the petitioner.
16. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The writ petition is allowed.
2. The impugned communication dated 21.12.2015 at Annexure 'D' to the extent of withholding the pension of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The respondent-KSCA is hereby directed to pay the arrears of pension to the petitioner from the date when which the pension was denied to the petitioner.
Although interest is sought for on the arrears of pension, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of -21- the considered opinion that interest need not be awarded.
4. The arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner as expediently as possible and nevertheless within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. If the respondent-KSCA wishes to proceed against the petitioner for any misconduct, the KSCA is at liberty to do so, only in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL/JT