WP/35135/2025 of Sahebzada Azmath Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana on 20 February 2026

ORDER:

The case of Petitioners is that Petitioner No.2 - Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club, is an affiliated member club of Respondent No.4 - Hyderabad Cricket Association. Petitioner No.2 is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, bearing Registration No.54O of 2014. The Hyderabad Cricket Association is itself a registered association under the A.P. (Telangana Areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, bearing Registration No.2O7 of 1961, governed by its registered bye-laws. It is stated that the ofhces of Respondent Nos.2 and 3

are sittrated at Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad.

1.1. It is contended that Respondent No.2 is the Apex Council/Managing Committee of the Hyderabad Cricket Association represented by its Secretar5r, and Respondent No.3 is the (lhief Executive OIIicer of Respondent No.4 Association. Petitiorer No.2 is a General Body Member club of the Hyderabad Cricket Association and has been regularly particiJrating in league matches, knockouts, Annua-l General Meetinlls, Special General Meetings and aII other tournaments, a-{fairs, meetings, functions, activities and matches conducted or organiz:ed by the Hyderabad Cricket Association.

1.2. It is pleaded that owing to repeated interference by the respondents in the internal management and alfairs of membt:r clubs, several clubs were constrained to approach this Court by fiiing writ petitions against Respondent Nos.2 to 4. This ()ourt, by orders dated, 28.04.2O23 in WP No.12651 of 2023, dated O1.O8.2O22 in WP Nos.26831 of 2022, 26842 of 2022 and 26840 of 2O22, granted relief to such clubs, thereby enabling them to secure their rightful opportunities. Petitioners assert that such judicial intervention demonstrates a pattern of interference by respondents necessitating recourse to writ lurisdiction.

1.3. [t is also contended, during the league season 2024-25, petitioner club itself was constrained to file WP No. 19252 of 2024, wherein interim direction as prayed for was granted, thereby permitting petitioner club to participate in two- day leagues, knockouts, Annual General Meetings or Special General Meetings, other meetings, functions, activities, matches and tournaments conducted or organized by the Hyderabad Cricket Association and the BCCI. The said order was duly complied with by respondents and the said Writ Petition was thereafter, closed.

1.4. It is contended that for the season 2025-26, petitioner club participated in league matches conducted by the Hyderabad Cricket Association frorn O2.O7.2025 to O2.O9.2025. Thereafter, no matches were conducted. Though the Hyderabad Cricket Association informed all clubs through SMS that the remaining matcheS would be reStheauled, such reSbheduling occurred after a gap of 43 days. During tlre interregnum of 43 days between the first schedule and the rescheduled matches, respondents conducted matches for Under-16, Under-19,

Under-113 and Ranji categories and selected various teams to represent the State on behaif of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. Due lro such selections, players who were not selecterl lost interest in continuing league participation, resultirrg in their unavailabilit5i to play or participate in further match, on behalf of petitioner club.

1.5. Petitioners stated that the Hyderabad Cricket Associzttion issued Notihcation dated 26.06.2025 for B Division 2-Day lrague Championship 2025-26. As per Rule 3(C)(a) of the said Notification, each club is permitted to register a maximum of 18 players and zr minimum of 12 players were required to be registered on or before 12.O7.2024. As per Rule 3(C)(b), remaining piayers could be registered up to 24 hours prior to the match schedule. It is specifically contended that the above Notification, styled as a tournament structure, was neither sanctioned by the Apex Council of Respondent No.2 nor approved by the General Body of Respondent No.4 as required throug,h an agenda and resolution. Therefore, Petitioners contend that the said Notification is arbitrar5r, ultra uires, unenforceable and un-implementable,

1.6 Petitioners submit that the following players were concerned:

(1) Player bearing Registration No.HCAS00865, Sudeep Dhali, Aadhaar No. 297814469519, was registered;

(ii) Player bearing Registration No.HCAU00O46, Umar Prawez, Aadhaar No.345141167784, applied for registration, but the website reflected his status as "verification withheld";

(iii) Player bearing Registration No.HCAM00932, Mohd. Faisal Alvi, Aadhaar No.521862958019, was registered. It is pleaded that two registered players, namely Sudeep Dhali and Mohd. Faisal AIvi, did not participate in arty league matches and were unavailable after registration. The third player, Umar Prawez, was not registered and continued to show "verification withheld". It is asserted that several other players were similarly disinclined to participate in further matches, rendering petitioner club absolutely incapacitated, crippled and impaired from participating in the remaining matches of the season conducted by respondents.

1.7. Petitioners also state that Rule I to Rule 8 do not bar replacement of players who are not registered, whose verification is r.vithheld, or who have not played any matches. Reliance is placed on Rule 7(c), which provides that any team forfeiting more than two matches shall be removed from the remaintler of the leagues. Respondents 2 and 3 were not permitting players to participate, hence, none player {iled Writ Petition No. 29777 of 2025. By order dated O6.O9.2025, this Court clirected Respondents 2 to 4 to allow petitioner therein to apply fi:r private teams as well. It is stated, petitioner club has no contractuaf binding or enforceable right to compel its players to par-iicipate in league or other matches. Players may be unavailable due to examinations, participation in private tournaments or lack of future selections after the present matchr:s, thereby losing interest. In such circumstances, refusai by the Hyderabad Cricket Association to permit replacement of unwilling or unavailable players, especially when one player's verificzrtion is withheld and others have not played any matches, would defeat petitioner's right to participate.

1.8. It is pleaded that petitioner club applied for replacement of players solely to ensure availability of eleven player,s to participate in matches, failing which, under Rule 7, petitioner club would suffer forfeiture. However, stalf, CEO and the Apex Council neither reflected the players as registered nor acted upon petitioner's request. It is contended that refusal to allow replacemcnt renders petitioner club crippled and incapable of participating in competitive matches due to exigencies beyond its control. Petitioners assert that they applied to register additional players only to make up the permissible maximum of 18 players and that petitioner club has an absolute right and choice to replace players to field a strong and competitive team.

1.9. It is further pleaded that respondents, by preventing petitioner club from selecting and managing its own players, were crippling its vested right to participate in competitions. Consequently, petitioner club was constrained to fite Writ Petition No.32177 of 2025 seeking directions to permit registration and replacement of players for B Division 2-Day League matches, knockouts, playoffs and other matches. By order dated 27 .10.2025, interim direction was granted and recording the submission of respondents that interim order was implemented, Writ Petition was closed.

1. 10. Petitiohers state that notwithstanding the aforeSaid orders and the respondents' statement of compliance, Notilication d,ated 26.O6.2O25 governing the B Division 2-Day Championship applies uniformly to the entire season, including

league 1:hase, knockout matches and championship phase. It is contencled that respondents themselves have been applying the said common rules to all matches, including leagues, knockouts, playoffs and other tournaments conducted by the Hyderabad Cricket Association. 1.1 1. It is pleaded that when petitioners, pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2025 dated 17. | | .2025, sought to register and replace players for upcoming matches, respondents deliberately kept the website inaccessible. When petitioners approached the staff, they were directed to contact the CEO rvho contended that the order in Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2025 was conlined to "league" matches and would not be imolemented for knockouts, playoffs or other matches. Despitr: the petitioner explaining that the terminolog, used was part of the Noti{ication d.ated 26.06.2025 and applied uniformly, the CEO remained adamant and refused to comply. Even though the Joint Secretary agreed that league season encompassed league matches, knockouts and playoffs, the CEO persist.ed in refusing compliance. Petitioners state that if respondents continue to preclude petitioner club from replacing players, petitioner's right to participate would stand defeated.

The continued inaction in not registering players is asserted to be capricious, unlawful, arbitrary, illegal and mala fide.

2. Respondent No.4 filed a detailed counter as well as an additional counter affidavit opposing the Writ Petition. It is contended that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in law, as Petitioners have an efficacious and alternate remedy under the Hyderabad Cricket Association Rules and Regulations, 2018. Reliance is placed on Rules 40 and 41 of the said Rules, which provide for adjudication of disputes by an independent Ombudsman. It is submitted that petitioner, being an aIliliated club and a generai body member of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, is mandatorily required to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism before the Ombudsman instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2.1. It is further contended that as per Rule 41 of the HCA Rules, 2)la, disputes relating to the sta-ff of the Association are also required to be referred to the Ombudsman. Reh-ance is placed on the Minutes of the Apex Council Meeting dated 08.O8.2025, which expressly record that disputes between or among the Hyderabad Cricket Association, its members, TTL franchisees and cricket piayers shall automatically be referred to the Ombudsman. Since petitioner club, admittedly, is an affiliated member club which had participated in leagues, knockouts, Annual General Meetings and other tournaments, responrlents assert that petitioner has a clear and adequate alternate remedy which has been deliberately bypassed.

2.2. According to respondents, petitioners have intentionally avoided the Ombudsman mechanism with the sole objecti.re of preventing adjudication of disputed factual issues, including player eligibility, registrations, inter-club transfers and c(rmpliance with tournament regulations, al1 of which requirr: factual scrutiny and verihcation and cannot be adjudi:ated in writ proceedings. Respondent No.4 issued the Notific,a.tion dated 26.06.2025 governing the B-Division 2-Day Leagut: Championship for 2025-26. The said Notilication lays down the rules, regulations and guidelines goveming the condu,rt of the tournament, including player registration, transft:rs and eligibility. Respondents rely heavily on Clause 3(C) of the Notif-rcation, which provides general guidelines for player registration.

2.3. Respondents specifically rely upon Rule 3(C), which permil-s each club to register a m .imum of 18 players, ll mandates that a minimum of 12 players must be registered by O3.O7 .2025 at 5:OO PM to participate in the first round, and permits registration of remaining piayers up to 24 hours before a match. The rule further restricts transfers of players who have played matches, prohibits transfers between divisions or formats, and places responsibility on the Club Secretary to verify player eligibility and domicile status. It is contended that a plain reading of Rule 3(C) clearly establishes that transfer of registered players who have played matches is prohibited, transfers across divisions or formats are impermissible, ald transfers between divisions are completely barred. In light of these binding Rules, respondents assert that the relief sought by petitioners seeking registration and replacement of players at the knockout stage wholly contrary to the governing regulations and violates the principle of fairness.

2.4. Respondents submit that the directions sought by petitioner would compel the Association to permit player registration wrlhouf urdert,rking mandatory verilication of documents, determination of whether players are a-lready registered with other clubs, examination of whether players are participating in different formats or divisions, and verification of l2 eligibilily. Such a course, according to the respondents, would underrr,ine the regulatory framework governing the tournament.

2.5. lt is further contended that petitioner club has already registered more than the permissible limit of 18 players. As per the documents appended by petitioners itself, the club has registered 19 . players, which is in direct violation of Rule 3(C)(a). Despite having exceeded the permissible limit, petitioner is now seeking further replacement of players at the knockout stage. It is stated, petitioner has only produced declaration forms for two players, namely G. Mohith Raj and D. Joel Johnsc,n, without producing any documents evidencing their eligibil;.ty under the Notifrcation dated 26-06.2025- The records reveal that both these players were earlier registered with Universal Cricket Club and SN Group Cricket Club respectively, which are C-Division teams, thereby demonstrating an imperrnissible attempt to transfer players across divisions.

2.6. According to respondents, the Writ Petition is riddlecl with inconsistencies and self-contradictions. On the one hand, petitioner describes Respondent No.4 as a formal and unnecessary party, on the other hand, seeks substantive reliefs against the same respondent. Similarly, while challenging the validity of the Notification dated 26.06.2025 as ultra uires and unenforceable, petitioner simultaneously relies upon the same notilication to seek relief. It is asserted that allowing new players to be introduced mid-tournament would seriously prejudice other teams that have complied with the rules and deadlines. A-ll the teams prepare strategies arrd combinations based on the originally registered squads and permitting replacements at the knockout stage would confer unfa.ir competitive advantage, disrupt predictability and compromise the integrity of the competition. 2.7 . It is further contended that registration and verilication process exists to ensure age compliance, domicile authenticity and disciplinary oversight. Permitting replacements without adherence to this process would amount to backdoor entry of players, weaken administrative discipline and burden the Association by discriminating against clubs that have acted in good faith. On merits, respondents deny the allegation that the inaction eomplained of is arbitrary, unlawful or violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution. It is contended that unavailability of players a-nd loss of interest on the part of l4 certain players cannot be attributed to the Association and is a consequence of the petitioner club's own decisions.

2.8. It is asserted that selection of players for Under-16, Under- 19, Under-23 and Ranji teams was based soleiy on perforrnance and cannot be construed as a cause for player disinterest. Petitioner's inability to field players is therefore, not attribu:able to an:r' act or omission of the respondents. It is specific'ally denied that Rules permit replacement of players in the m;rnner sought by petitioner. Respondents assert that petitiorrer failed to demonstrate that players sought to be registe:ed are unregistered, withheld or have not played aly matchr:s, and the allegations in this regard are described as ba-ld and unsubstantiated. lt is denied that refusal to permit replact:ment defeats petitioner's right to participate. Once petitio:rers exercised their right to register players at the comm(:nccment ol' the league, they cannot subsequently seek replac,:ment of players whom it itself selected and registered.

2.9. Respondents further deny that Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2025 supports petitioner's case. It is contended that both the interim and final prayers in the said writ petition were expresisly limited to league matches and did not extend to championship or knockout phases. Therefore, the orders passed therein cannot be relied upon to claim replacement rights for knockouts or playoffs. It is contended that the Notification dated 26.06.2025 clearly demarcates league phase, championship phase and knockout matches, and the earlier interim order cannot be interpreted to override this structure or permit fresh registration of players beyond the league phase.

3. In the additional counter-affidavit, respondents further contend that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for lack of locus standi. It is asserted that Petitioner No.1 has no valid authorization to represent Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club. According to the Association records, the club is owned by Mr. Moim Patel, and the Writ Petition Iiled by Mr. Sahebzada AzrnatLr Ali Khan ciaiming to be acting President is without valid authorization. It is further contended that petitioner club, having registered players beyond the permitted limit, secured the last position in the B-Division league matches and is now attempting to replace a substantial nfmber of players at the knockout stage to avoid demotion and gain unfair advantage.

3.1. Respondents aJlege mala fides in fiIing the present Writ Petition, pointing out that while petitioners initially sought replacement of two players, it later sought replacement of ten players by Memo dated 16.12.2O25, which would effectively amoun. to changing the entire team at the knockout stage. It is also a:;serted that certain players sought to be registered, including Ahmed Khan and Mohammed Samad, were already registered with Sunshine Cricket Club and Manchester Cricket Club respectively for the current season, rendering them ineligible under Ruie 3(C) of the notification. Respondents reiterat.e that fresh registrations after the league stage are impernrissible and that players who were not registered for the season cannot be permitted to directly participate in knockout matchr:s. It is finally contended that petitioners, having voluntarily registered its squad in accordalce with the Rules at the cornmencement of the season, cannot now seek indulgence from this Court to override the regulatory framework.

4. In the rejoinder frled by Petitioners, all the allegations, averments and contentions raised in the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of Resporrdent No.4 are categorically denied as false, baseless, conco<:ted and misleading, save and except those expressly admitted. It is asserted that counters have been filed with an

intent to mislead this Court and to scuttle the legitimate rights of the petitioner club. Petitioners contend that bye-laws of the Hyderabad Cricket Association have statutory force, having been framed pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, comprising three former Judges of the Supreme Court, namely Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice R.V. Raveendran. The recommendations of Lodha Committee were accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014.

4.1. It is further pleaded that pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in PIL No. 16 of 2Ol7 dated. 12.09.2O18, administrators were appointed to carry out amendments to the bye-laws of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. Accordingly, the corrected bye-laws were registered on L2.12.2OI8 as "Registration of corrected bye-Iaws of HCA". It is asserted that these byeJaws, having been framed under judicial supervision, possess binding statutory character. It is asserted, as per Bye-law No.44 of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, the Association can sue or be sued only through its l8 Secretary. The Chief Executive Officer has no authorilr under the b1'e-laws to depose, file afhdavits or represent the Associa.tion in judicial proceedings. No resolution of the General Body or the Apex Council authorizing the CEO to file the counte:: has been produced. Consequently, counter and additiona,l counter tried by the CEO are asserted to be incomf,etent, non est and liable to be ignored.

4.2. With regard to the objection relating to availability of alter native remedy, Petitioners specifically rely upon Rules 40 and 41 of the bye-laws to contend that Ombudsman mechanism is intended for disputes inter se members or between members and the Association. It is asserted that the present grievance does not involve any inter-member dispute, but pertains to the failure of the respondents to act in accordance with statutory byeJa'vs and judicial orders.

4.3. Petitioners submit that the relief sought is a commi:rnd to enforce compliance with bye-laws and prior judicial orders and therefore, falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended that the Ombudsman mechanism is not attracted in cases involving violation of statutory bye-laws and constitutional rights. It is contended that the order passed in Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2025 was a consent order, was implemented by the respondents and was never challenged in Appeal. Consequently, respondents are estopped from taking a contrary stand in the present Writ Petition. They assert that principles of res judicata under Section 11 CPC and estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act squarely apply.

4.4. Petitioners deny respondents' contention that the earlier Writ Petition was limited only to league matches. It is pleaded that Notification dated 26.06.2025 treats league phase, knockout phase and championship phase as part of one composite tournament structure, governed by common Rules. Therefore, the attempt to confine the earlier order to league matches alone is described as artificial, untenable and contrary to the record. It is further contended that despite applying the same notification and rules uniformly for league matches, knockouts and playoffs, respondents selectively refused to permit petitioner to implement the earlier ordei for knoCkout ald playoff matches. Such selective application of rules is asserted to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

4.5. Petitioners speciflcally plead that neither Responrlent No.2 - Apex Council nor Respondent No.4 Hyderabad Cricket Association, through its Secretary, filed any counter denying the specific plea that Notihcation dated 26.06.2025 lacks sanction of agenda or resolution of the Apex Councij or General Body. It is asserted that such non-denial amounl:s to admission. It is alleged, counter afhdavits filed by the so<:alled Interim CEO are intended to arm-twist and cripple petition.er club in order to favour other teams. The Interim CEO has a ,:lear conflict of interest, having earlier served as Joint Secretary of a cricket club, and has allegedly intruded into the administration of the Hyderabad Cricket Association by suppressing material facts from the Genera-l Body. Under Bye- law Nc.24, the role of the CEO is strictly administrative and limited, and the CEO is expressly prohibited from interfering in cricketing matters. The action of the CEO in interfering with player registration and team composition are therefore, asserted to be ultra uires'the byeJaws and void.

4.6. Petitioners further allege that CEO filed false and misleading allidavits with oblique motives to promote and favour teams associated vrrith inlluential individuals within the Apex

Council. It is pleaded that such conduct is vitiated by bias and conflict of interest and renders the irnpugned actions illegal. Denial of replacement of players, despite prior judicial orders and uniform application of rules for the entire tournament, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Denials contained in the counter afhdavit are described as bald, vague, routine and untenable.

4.7. Petitioners assert that the core contention raised by respondents, namely that the interim and final prayers in WP No.32177 of 2025 were limited to league matches, is factually and legally incorrect. It is pleaded that legality of Rule 3(C) itself was in issue and was never denied by the competent authorities. The Interim CEO, it is contended, cannot transgress the authority of the Secretary or reinterpret judiciai orders to suit his convenience. For a1l the aforesaid reasons, Petitioners reiterate that counter affidavits Iiled by Respondent No.4 do not disclose any valid ground for denial of relief.

Heard Sri Mir Omer Khan, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Sports on behalf of Respondent No.l and Sri V. Rajender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4.

6. At the outset, it is not in dispute that Petitioner No.2 is an affiliated General Body Member of the Hyderabad Cricket Association and has been participating in the B Division 2-Day League Championship for the season 2025-26. It is equally undisputed ttrat the tournament in question is governed by the Notification dated 26.06.2025 issued by the Hyderabad Cricket Association and that Rule 3(C) therein regulates player registre.tion for the said championship. The grievance of petitior.ers is not a challenge to the Notification dated 26.06.2'.025 per se, but to the manner in which Respondents have applied the said notilication selectively and inconsistently, particutarly in refusing to permit replacement or registration of players for petitioner club, despite circumstances pleaded to be beyond the control ofthe club. 7 . A significant and determinative feature emerging from the record is that petitioner club had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2025 raising same grievance, relating to same R.ule 3(C), same notification dated 26.06.2025 and same tournarnent season. By order dated 27.10.2025, this Court granted interim relief permitting replacement of players. Respondents, through counsel, represented before this Court that the said order had been implemented and on such submission, the Writ Petition was closed by order dated

17. tr.2025.

8. Once respondents voluntarily implemented the interim order and allowed the Writ Petition to be closed without demur or challenge, they cannot subsequently, be permitted to approbate and reprobate by adopting a restrictive or artiltcial interpretation of the order to deny similar relief in respect of matches conducted under the very same notification forming part of the same tournament structure. Such conduct offends settled principles of fairness, consistency and administrative propriety.

9. The contention of respondents that the earlier order in Writ Petition No. 32L77 of 2025 was confined only to "league matches" and did not extend to knockouts or playoffs cannot be accepted in the factual matrix of the present case. A plain reading of the Notification dated 26.06. 2025 demonstrates that league phase, knockout phase and championship phase are integral components of a single tournament governed by a common set of rules. Respondents themselves have applied the said notification uniformly across all phases of the tournament.

10. In such circumstances, the attempt to carve out a rigid e.nd compartmentalized distinction between "league matche s" and "knockout matches" solely for the purpose of denyin5l relief to petitioner club appears artificial and contrived. Administrative authorities, particularly those discharging public functio:rs in the realm of sports governance, are expected to act with cc,nsistency and transparency, and not in a manner that defeats the legitimate expectations arising from their own conduc t.

11. The plea raised by respondents regarding availab ilit5r of an alternative remedy before the Ombudsman under Rules 40 and 41 of the Hyderabad Cricket Association Rules ;rnd Regulations, 2018 aiso merits careful scrutiny. While it is tnre that bye-laws provide for an internal dispute resolution mechanism, existence of such a remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the grievance pertains to alleged arbitrariness, violation of bye-laws having statutory force, and non-compliance with prior judicial orders. L2. In the present case, tJre grievalce of petitioner is not in the nature of a private dispute inter se members or a factual dispute requiring adjudication of rival claims, but relates to the implementation of tournament rules and prior orders of this Court. This Court has already exercised jurisdiction in respect of the same issue in Writ Petition No.32177 of 2025. ln such circumstances, relegating petitioners to the Ombudsman would neither be efficacious nor appropriate.

13. The contention regarding the competence ofcounter filed by the Chief Executive Officer also cannot be lightly brushed aside. Petitioners have specifically relied upon Bye-law 44, which stipulates that Hyderabad Cricket Association shall sue or be sued in the name of the Secretary. It is an admitted position that no counter has been filed by the Secretar5r of the Association disputing the core factual assertions raised by petitioners, including the plea regarding lack of sarction of the Notification by the Apex Council or General Body. While this Court does not propose to non-suit respondents solely on the ground of technical incompetence of pleadings, absence of a categoried denial by -the competent authority lends weight to petitioners' contention that material pleas have remained unanswered. In writ proceedings, particularly where allegations

of arbi!:ariness and mala 75de exercise of power are raised, such omissions assume significance. L4. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that Courts ordinarily do not interfere in the internal affairs of sporting associations or in matters of team selection and tournarnent administration. However, such restraint is not absolut e- Where the action of an Association is shown to be arbitra ry, discriminatory, or violative of its own bye-laws or constitrtional principles, judicial review is not only permissible but ne(lessary. The present case does not involve a demand for wholesale replacement of teams or interference with competitive integrity in abstract. Petitioners pleaded specifrc circumstances, including unavailability and non-veri.fication of players, which, if not ad,lressed, would render petitioner club incapable of fielding eleven players and expose it to forfeiture under Rule 7(c) of the very notification relied upon by Respondents.

15. Denial of permission to replace or register players who have not played any match, in such circumstances, would effecti rely result in exclusion of petitioner club from the tourn€unent, not on account of sporting merit, but due to administrative rigidity and selective application of rules. Such an outcome would defeat the very object of conducting competitive leagues and would amount to arbitrary cxercise o[ power. Rcsl:ondents' reliancc on the principlc of fairness arld competitive balance cannot be accepted in isolation, divorced from the factual context. Fairness is a two-way street. While cnsuring a level playing field for all teams, the Association is equally obligated to ensure that its actions do not unfairly handicap a member club by denying it the mininrum opportunity to participate, especially whcn earlier judicial directions to the contrary have been implemented.

16. In the considered view of this Court, the cumulative effect of respondents conduct namely, implementation extend similar of the earlier order, subsequent rcfusal to treatment for the same tournament, selective interpretation of rules, and failure of the competent authority to controvert material pleas, renders the impugned inaction arbitrary and unsustainable in law. This Court therefore, holds that respondents cannot, under the guise of tournament regulations, selectively deny petiLioner club the opportunity to register or replace players in accordance with the Notihcation t /

2E dated 26.06.2025, particularly when such denial would result in forfciture and cxciusion of petitioner club from the tournament.

17. ln the result, the Writ Petition is :rllowed. Respondents 2 tct 4 are directed to permit petitioner club to register :rnd replace players, strictly in accordance with the Notification dated 26.06.2O25, for participation in the remaining matc 1es of B Division 2-Day League Championship 2025-26, inclu,ling knockouts and playoffs, subject to fulirllment of eligibility conditions prescribed under the said Notihcation. No costs.

18. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any s hall stand closed. -K.BHAVANI SWAMY ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

8. PMK PMK 1 . The Principal Secretary - youth Services and Sports, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 2 The S:cretary. Apex Coun-cil of Hyderabad Cricket Association, Office at FaJrv Gandhr tnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad Cricket Association Office at Rajiv C,andhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabid.

4. The Hyderabad Cricket Association, Rep. by its Secretary Office at Rajiv C andhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Ubpai, UVaeraOaJ.

5. Cne CC to SRt tVtR OMER KHAN, Advocate [OpUC]

6. Cne CC to SRI V.RAJENDER RAO, SC FOR HCA [OPUCJ

7. Two CCs to GP FOR SPORTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [O|.JT] Two CD Copies,,W SECTION OFFICER \

! ! ,I lr I I I

l i ,, i l

HIGH COURT DATED:2010212026 ORDEFI WP.No.35135 ot 2025 ALLO'WING THE WRIT PETITION WITHI]UT COSTS CG TODAY I STATE 2 0 ttB 1$?[ a o + I t l.olvl'z-o (' o-