WP/22361/2025 of THE COMMERCIAL TAXES CRICKET CLUB, Vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA, on 9 January 2026

1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Sports and Youth Services Depa(ment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana, lndia

2. THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, represented by its Secretary, Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad

3. CoIUMERCIAL TAXES CRICKET CLUB, represented by its secretary B. Venkataiah Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, H. No. 5-8-1 12, First Floor, 21st Century Complex, Opposite Chenetha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-500001 ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, dectaring the action of Respondent No- 2 in not recognizing the Petitioner Club as the rightful and legitimate affiliated Club of the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Hyderabad Cricket Association based on the Order passed in Case No. 6 of 2025 by the Hon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman Addl. Charge, despite the Petitioner's co-ntinuous affiliation, participation in league tournaments, payment of requisite fees, and compliance with all norms since its inception in 1986 as unreasonable, illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently to recognize the Petitioner as the full Member of the Hyderabad Cricket Association Respondent No. 2 with all the rights and privileges to the Petitioner which it is entifled to as affilir ed club of Hyderabad cricket Association by setting aside order in case No. 6 of 2t25 dated 29.11.2024 I passed by the Hon'ble Respondent No. 2. Ethics Officer and Ombudsn r n Addl. Charge of lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15.1 CpC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court mir be preased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to permit the petitioner to participat€ n ,c,Division for the League Matches for the season 2025_26 conducted by the Re ;pondent No. 2.

Between: Commercial Taxes Cricket CIub, represented by its Sec r tary B. Venkataiah Assistant Commissioner commerc-iii rJ;;, {rN;. s_8_1 12, First Ftoor. 21st Century Comptex, opposite cnenutn" e'iirbn, r.ii'ririlrv Hi;;;;;j;:;b.00i,i AND ...pETrTtONEF/IESpONDENTNo.3

1. The Commercial Taxes Cricket Club, represented by its r ieneral Secretarv B s usheer Ku ma r Sem war, oni"J ri'ob:I' *"'8I "".,i. Jr, "".iJ ^iJnli E'EiJ.i: Neredmet, R.K puram, Medchal tuirtk;j;i;di"ffit, ,",r,3rnr ...RESPONDEN T WRlT PETITIONER 1 . The State Of Telanoar s e, i c;; D; p; ;; lj;i E;1,"&"i:j:._?!::jts?,.: ?31 ,,i#;: i o rts,a n d yo u rh 2 rhe Hyderabad cricket Assogi"tiil,i$;;;;iu'0"f1) it, se rretarv. Raiiv GandhitnternarionatCrickelStiiiiui,,Upi:"i,i"vtIirn"a ...RESPONDEII' S/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circL nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r ray be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 13.01 .2O2S in W.p. No. 22361 cf 2025 passed. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI M.HAREESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Cp fOn SpOCiS counser for the Respondent No.2: snr v.nn.relrb-ii nno, s( FoR HcA Counset for the Respondent No.3: Snf f.SAiffnielif,fi W.P.NO:379 5o oF 2025 Between: The comerciar raxes cricket crub,. Represented by its Hon. secretarv sHArK JALALUDDTN, Offi_ce at _O/o. As;[ C;mir:ssione, (ST), KhairthaUaa Somaiiouda_ 1 . 8th Ftoor, B Bto;k, M;y* k;;;ili c".pr *)Idia",.iil.liffi1";

- 500001. AND ...PETIT|oNER

1. The State Of Telanoan^a, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Sports and youth Services Deoartmeit, secreiariai, iiya"rif,al,i"eirng"na, tndia.

2. The Hyderabad Cricket.Asso"iri".;'R;#;;;tei oy its Secretary. Raiiv

- Gandhi tnrernationat Cricket Stidiurir, utpij]'iVj"rib;; -- -.",,' '.",,, 3 commerciar raxes cricket crub, Rep;;JJ;i;d'dv"its secret"ry B. venkataiah Assistant commissioner commerciir iJieiiir]'rvl. s-a-r rz, First Froor, 2nd 9Sl1,lry Comptex, opposite ctrenetna aiiiian, r.irrpjrrv, Hvb#;6";:', -,," 500001.

4. The Single Member Committee, Hyderabad Cricket Association, Rajiv Gandhi tnternationat Cricket Stadium, Ljppli -nvaeiaU"i"' (The Respondent No..4 is not a necessary party to the present proceedings and has been arrayed as a proforma pirt'vi - '' '- petition under Articte 2z6of rhe Constitution of tndia ,j::j:]::T: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to grant a writ, order or Direction, more particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the order passed by the Honourable ombudsman Addl. charge of Respondent No. 2 dated 2911112024 in case No. 6 of 2024 in refusing to the exercise lhe jurisdiction as per the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of Hyderabad cricket Association-201 8 of Respondent No. 2 and directing the parties to approach the civit court, (which direction could not have been passed against the petitioner herein as it was the Respondent in case No. 6 of 2024) as unreasonabre, ilegar, unrawfur, arbitrary and viorative of Articres 14, 1g and 21 0t the constitution of rndia and consequenfly set aside the order of the Honourable Ombudsman dated 29111/2O24 by dismissing Case No. 6 of 2024, (b) declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 i.e. Hyderabad cricket Association in noi recognizing the petitioner crub as the rightfur and regitimate affiliated Club of the Respondent No.2, despite the petitioner,s continuous affiliation, participation in league tournaments, payment of requisite fees, and compliance with arr norms since its inception in 19g6 and consequenfly direct the ize the Petitioner as the full Memt :r of the Hyderabad Respondent No. 2 to recognl Cricket Association i.e. Respondent No 2 with all the rights i nd privileges to the Petitioner which it is entitled to as affiliated club of Hyderabat lricket Association' IA NO:1OF 2025 Petltion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci r 'Lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the Order passed by the Honourable Ombudsrr rn Addl Charge of Respondent No. 2 dated 2911112024 in Case No' 6 of 2024 '

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court mrt be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to recognize the Petitioner as the full Member of the Hyderabad Cricket Association ie Respondent No' 2 wil r all the rights and privilegestothePetitionerwhichitisentitledtoaSaffilial€jclubofHyderabad Cricket Association

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci :umstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmelbepleasedtodirect the Respondent No. 2 to permit the Petitioner to participz:e in all the League' knockout and any other match whatsoever conducted/to le conducted by the Respondent No..2. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M'HAREESH KUMAR C.r"."f for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR SPORTS - ;;;;;;i ioi in" n""b"naeni t'to.z: sRl v'RAJENDEB R1o sc FoR HcA ;;;;;i for the Respondent No'3: SRI K'SATHAKARNI Counsel for the Respondent No'4: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF IELANGAUA HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT NS No. 2236L PETITIO ANri 3795 oF 2()25 ... .. ResPondents o ()9. o1.2026 The Commercial Taxes Cricket Club' n.p tV i = General Secretary B' Susheel Kumar Semwal ....- Petitioner Between: And OR DER: The State of Telangana, Reo. bv its PrinciPal Secretary, Sports and Youth Services Depa rtmenl- and others

1. Heard Sri M' Hareesh Kumar' learned counsel for Petitioner, Sri V. Rajender Rao' learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 - Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) and K' Sathakarni' learned counsel for Respondent No 3 - Commercial Taxes Cricket CIub.

2. Writ Petition No' 22361 of 2025 is hled aggrieved by the action of HCA in not recognizing Petitioner Club as their rightful and legitimate affiliated Club based on the Order dated 29.11.2t]24 in Case No' 6 of 2024 of the Hon'ble Ethics Officer andOmbudsmanAdditionalCharge,despitePetitioner,s continuousaffrliation,participationinleaguetournaments, payment of requisite fees and compriance with : lr norms since its inception in 19g6.

3. Writ petition No. 37950 of 2025 is lrJr 1 aggrieved by the Order o[ the Ombudsman Additional Charge rt Respondent No. 2 dated 29.t7.2O24 in Case No. 6 of 2024 **t ir;h refused to exercise the jurisdiction as per the Memorandun tf Association and Rules and Reguiations of Hyderabad crick: Associa[ion_ 2OI8 of Respondent No. 2 and directing the partre; [o approach the Civil Court, (which direction could not hav : Iteen passed against the petitioner herein as it was the Respcr dent in Case No' 6 of 2024). They arso sought a decraratio. rrat action of Respondent No.2 in not recognizing petitionr:r Ulub as the rightful and legitimate affiliated Club of Respc r clen t No. 2, despite Petitioner,s continuous afflrliation, participr, I ()n rn league tournaments, payment of requisite fees and compii urce with a norms since it s inception in 19g6 and consequer 1 r, direct the Respondent No. 2 to recognize them as the fufl IVr mbcr of the Hyderabad Cricket Association with all the rights rLr ul privileges to the Petitioner which it is entitled Hyderabad Cricket Association.

4. petitioner in both the to as affiLe tr:d club of Writ Petiti:,rs is the Commercial Taxcs Cricket Club Writ Petition No. 22. ntl ot 2O2S was filed by tirc Commercial Taxes Cricket Club, rc;; rrsented by I

.7 its Secretary B. Susheel Kumar Semwal who was elected as Secretary for the period 07.I2.2O24 - 06.12.2025. Since the said period has come to an end, Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025 was lrled. Though Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 has, in fact, become infructuous, at the request of the parties, since Respondent No. 3 filed Counter in Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 and requested this Court to treat the same as counter in Writ Petition No. 22361 of 2025 also, the same are being disposcd of by a common Order.

5. The case of Petitioner is that their Club was founded in 1986-87 by Bhupender Lal and T. Basavaraj with its registered ofhce as D. No. 349/SRT, Opposite Sarvodaya Mahila Mandal, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. Since its inception, the entire Annual Subscription and League fees have been paid by Petitioner through its bank account and receipts have been issued by HCA to Petitioner and the receipts for the years 1998- 99, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2008-09, 2009-rO, 20t0-tt, 201r-12, 20t2-t3, 20t3 74, 20t4 15, 2015-16, 2076 77, 20t8-19, 2019- 20,2O2O-21 and 2O2l-22 have been filed before this Court.

5.1. It is stated, from 1986-87 onwards, the names of the office bearers of Petitioner are shown as having attended all the Annual General Meetings (AGM) and Special General Meetings (SGM). The team selected by Petitioner alone has

participated in various league matches anc knockout tournaments conducted by the HCA. petitioner fiI,: t 6..1ig"r,. of Registration dated June 20 1O of Club, ts I aws, let[er addressed to Terangana commercial Taxes NGOs \ssociation, letter from the Terangana commerciar raxes NGOs lssociation, Ietter addressed by B. Susheel Kumar Semwal L: nding over administration of the Crub, Resolution and minutes of meeting of Petitioner club, list of members presented at the i l.d AGM of HCA, receipts for payments made by petitioner to . lcspondent No. 2 from 1998 to 2022, ID card issued by Respor Cent No. 2 for Special General body from 20 1O to Hyderabad Cricket annual list/record o executive Master Register marr tained by Association, letters addresr;r d bv T Meeting, 2025, Petitioner Club, letter from the then petitioner Secrc: Supervisory Committee etcetera before this Court in Petitioner's contention.

5.2. It is the further case of petitioner thar, blue in 2O23, Respondent No. 3 without arry right, i entitlement, based on an alleged letter issued by the, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, had pr in the elections of the HCA. Apart from this so I Basavaraj (Committee Member) to Cricket Association, statement of the President, {yderabad savings bank e:count of ary to the rupport of rut of the rterest or .dditional -l.icipated :ary act, .,]

) Respondent No. 3 has no re lation whatsoever with Pe titione r Club. It is contended, Respondent No.3 i.e. B. Venkataiah approached HCA for the firrst time in 2023. Prior thereto, . Respondent No. 3 was not even aware about the exrstence of the Club. If Respondent No. 3 had a semblance of right, interest or entitlement in the Club, he would have basic record to show his election as Secretary, payment of subscription amounts from the account maintained by him, representation in the meetings of HCA, participation in the leagues etcetera. In the absence thereof, it is clear that the claim by Respondent No.3 is nothing more than an arm-twisting device to extract money. It is further contended that the said Venkataiah has not placed on record a single document to establish that he has any semblalce of right, interest or entitlement in the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club or that the said Club is in any way connected to the Commercial Taxes Department. Petitioner by stating the aforesaid facts requested this Court to take cognizance of the illegitimate manner in which Respondent No.3 is holding Petitioner to ransom, and Respondent No. 3 should face all the legal consequences for his ill thought of misadventure and must be brought to book fgr illegally and unlawfully st5rling himself as Secretary of the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club. ar .,. -/ I ll I I I I

5.3. Petitioner contends that in this fact_ Respondent No. 3 filed Case No. 6 of 2024 before r_ and Ombudsman Additional Charge of HyderiL Association (hereinafter referred to as ,Ombudsrr i Petitioner with a prayer to recognizc Respondent Nc member of HCA. In the said case, the Ombudsrr categorically recording a hnding that Respondent Irr hle any documentary evidence establishing its cas both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 to civil Order dated 29.11.2024 and further directed recognize Petitioner or Respondent No. 3 as its I pending adjudication by the civii Court.

5.4. Petitioner challenges the Order of the Crr on the ground that Ombudsman failed to r ) jurisdiction vcsted in it and despite declining to as jurisdiction, proceeded to pass directions beyond ;t by directing Petitioner (Respondent in Case No. 6 c f Respondent No. 3 to approach the civil Court.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner relies judgement of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Conpt Auditor General oJ India, Gian prq.kasfu Neu D,z rl scenario, hics Of{icer ,ad Cricket n') , again st 3 :rs a full an, despite .3 failed to :, relcgated ColurL uide CA not to rll member lbudsman, ercise thc ;ume such ; authority '2024) and upon the 'oller q.nd. 'hi u. K.S. fr

') Jagannathanr, wherein it was categorically held that the High Courts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, can issue a writ of mandamus or directions even in matters involving discretion, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise, has wrongly exercised, or has abused such discretion, including on mala fide or irrelevalt considerations, so as to compel proper and lawful performance of that discretion, and in an appropriate case may itself pass the order which the authority ought to have passed. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder: "

20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Artrcle 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala hde or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public €iuthority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court mayitself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." ' (ts864scc 67s

(emphasis supplied)

7. The case of Respondent No- 2 HCA rs that a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is not naintainable against the Orders passed by the Ombudsman of tr: Hyderabad Cricket Association. The counter conhned only to r Le ground of maintainability and did not traverse any of I mentioned in the writ afhdavit. Respondent No. 2 1 reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court i District Cricket Association ,s. Hgd.erabc Association and prayed for dismissal of the Writ p: ground of maintainability.

Respondent No. 3 contended that Wril 22367 of 2O25 is not maintainable since it wa s erstwhile Secretary Susheel Kumar who was not ar the Commercial Taxes Department. He has no locusi the present Writ Petition. They placed relialce on A: Preamble of the Bylaws of petitioner Association to contention. Respondent No. 3 did not plead a posi piace on record any document establishing that t independent right or claim over the Commercial Trr Club. Relying upon the bylaws of the Commercial .l.r Club, it is prayed that Writ petition be dismiss :d as not ma r n'taina ble. \ re facts as Iaced heavy t Nolgonda d Cricket ition on the ?etition No. filed by its :mployee of -o maintain icle 12 and rupport his ive case or e had any :es Cricket res Cricket

; g. Respondent No. 3 did not hle any independent counter in Writ Petition No. 37950 of 2025 and adopted the Counter hled in Writ Petition No. 2236i of 2025. Respondent No. 3 contended that despite the fact that administration of the Club was now in the hands of the employees of the Commercial Taxes Department, its objection as to locus still subsists.

10. In view of the rival claims, the points that arise for consideration are:

(i) whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 would be maintainable against the Order passed by the Ombudsman on the grounds of non-exercising of jurisdiction and passing of directions despite refusing to exercise jurisdiction, beyond its authority as claimed by the Petitioner?

(ii) Whether the Writ Petitions filed by Petitioner are not maintainable on the ground that they are against the byelaws, rules and regulations of the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club as claimed by the ResPondent No. 3?

(iii) Whether the Order passed by the Ombudsman in Case No' 6 of 2024, calls for any interference?

11. POINT lit: Learned counsel for Respondent No' 2 contended that Writ Petition in its present form is not maintainable as this Court rn Nalgonda Dtstrict Crtcket Association o. Hgderabad Cricket Association, categorically /

l0 held that a Writ petition could not lie againsl ar Order passed by the Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Ass rciation as the Order passed by the Ombudsman was akin to arr rrbitral award which ought to be challenged before a Civil Cour of competent jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for petitione r rebutted the said argument and contended that Writ petition :s maintainable inasmuch as Ombudsman in Case No. 6 of 2r) 14 refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested. with it, despite declining to assume such jurisdiction, proceeded to pass dirr: tions beyond its authority by directing petitioner and Respor ( enL No. 3 to approach the civil Court. Therefore, there was no I :cision per se on merits, against which petitioner could have hle I an Appeal.

12. Learned counsel law, as follovr.s: for Petitioner furtl- r r argued

(i) The High Court's power under Article 226 is 1 lenary and is par[ of the basic structure of the Constitution of ] _rdia.

(ii) The p.v'ers of the High court under Articre )26 have no fe[ters and the restrain on the power is a self_impo; :cl restrain.

(iii) Even if there is an alternative remedy, the igh Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under Articre 2,2( to o,eet t,e ends ofjustice. (i") Once the authority IS refusing to exercisr: jurisdiction on vested with it, a Writ petition under Article 226 wrt rld not only be maintainable but would be an appropriate remerl. . (") The ombudsman, while refusing to exercisc urisdiction, could not have gone ahead and issued a dire; ion to the YI ll Petitioner, in the case filed by the Respondent No. 3. Such an action would be perverse and unsustainable. ("i) The Judgment in Nalgonda District Cricket Association case (supra), is distinguishable on facts as in that case, the Ombudsman had conclusively decided the issue and this Court r.l,as of the view that since the Ombudsman had exercised jurisdiction and passed a detailed Order, the decision of the Ombudsman would be akin to decision by the arbitrator and a Writ Petition against the arbitration award would not lie. [n the present case, there had been a complete failure to exercise the jurisdiction, and a perverse direction is given despite refusing to exercise jurisdiction and as such the Writ Petition is not only maintainable but a proper remedy.

13. This Court finds considerable force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for Petitioner. ln the present case, the Ombudsman had refused to exercise the j urisdiction vested in him under the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations-2Ol8 of Hyderabad Cricket Association. This jurisdiction was not exercised despite recording a categorical hnding that Respondent No.3 (B. Venkataiah) faited to produce any documentary evidence. The relevant portion of the Order is reproduced as under: '

3. Both the parties were put on notice in view of the rival contentions claimed by both the parties in respect of the same club and to decide who is genuine and real person entitled to rePresent the Commercial Ta-\es Cricket CIub and a notice dated 21 08 2024 was issued to furnish answers to the questionnaire. The questionnaire lor

- t2 which the replies required to be submitted a-re abour .l documents pertaining to the date of filing of the applica j and date of affijiation, Registration Certificate, details r bod5', general body, lear wise list given to HCA, p.rrf L€ague matches from the date ot affiliation, det.ri s accounls, audited accou nts has, details of the members of the club' play grounds ceneral Meetings, details (of the clubattending the AC members of the ctub, ."",."tr, ,'r" il":: il::T rj; List of the Cricketers who at request of the parties, ,n. -.tt the parties of the Gercra I,.or the questionnaire t'e u.,ttttt *u" adjourned, posted evidence, and the n-,.r,.. ott'ot"t could not submit arr set,ement. vent several adjournments e details of the rn for a{Iiliation f the execu tive ripation of the of the bank ' an_v the club M and Special giveD to the ared b1, HCA, bod).. At the t 18 10.2024. documentary for amicable t4. that no Once the Ombudsman recorded a s: :cific fincting documentary eviclence was produced refore it by Respondent No. 3, the Authority could not have re egated both Ombudsrr z n) who ,,r.as required under laq, to prove his case and miserz I ly failed to discharge the burden of proof. In such a factual si uation, the the Petitioner Respondent No Ombudsman by Petitioner and Respondent to 3 (Petitioner before the civil Cour and sir-rce committed an error in ignoring the re: rrds placed from 1986 onwards and putting a . Lalt to the exercise of full membership rights of petitioner all r a sudden after more than three decades. Such a direction iS ex-facie arbitrary and capricious i5. This Court therefore, deems it app 1 priate to tttl:,. rhat thc power vestecr in the High courts urr,,er Articrc ll 226 of dne Constitution is plenary, of the widest amplitude, and forms an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kutnar a, tlnion oJ India2. Exercise of such power is controlled onty by self-imposed restraints and not by any statutory Iimitation or other external fetter. Mere existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, oust or curtail writ jurisdiction ol the High Court, as authoritatively held in Whirlpool Corporation rt. Reglsttor of T'rade Marks3, whercin it was laid down that the High Court may nonetheless exercise its j urisdiction where fundamental rights are affected, principles of natural justice are violated, or the authority has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. As rightly contended by learned counsel for Petitioner, once an authority vested with j urisdiction reluses to exercise the same, invocaLion of writ jurisdiction of this Court not only becomes maintainable but constitutes the proper and efficacious remedy; such an authority, having declined to assume jurisdiction, cannot thercafter proceed to issue directions to the parties, and any such course of action is clearly ultra uires, perverse, and unsusta inable in law. ' ( 1997) 3 scc 26 I ' (t gge) 8 scc t

In the present case, once thr Ombudsman [o exercise the jurisdiction r,:sted in it, it simultaneously directed l) titioner and to approach civil Court, nor ;ould it have rssued a direction to Hyderabad Cricket Associzr on to curtail the rights of a fult member that petitioner had br:n exercising for several decades. It is inconceivable that Ombur sman having found that no case vr.as made out by Responder I No. 3, went ahead and issued a direction to petitioner to zr rproach civil Court and restricted its rights in the interregnurr by issuing a direction to Respondent No. 2. petitioner could r< t have been made to suffer the consequence o[ Respondent Nc. 3 not being able to establish his case. Therefore, the direction I sued by the Ombudsman is whol$ arbitrary and unsustainable t6 expressly declined could no[ have Respondent No. 3 l4 the juctgment ccrse (supra)

Reliance placed on Nalgonda misplaced, e on facts; liction and orted with tral award 'erence, in ,-te failure Jirections Distrlct Cricket .4ssociation rnasmuch as that decision is clearly distinguishtrlr the Ombudsman in that case having exercised juri; rendered a detailed, cogent, reasoned decision supl evidence, which was treated as analogous to an arl) and, on that footing, held not amenable to writ inter con fFadistinction, the instant matter involves a conll) to cxercise jurisdictio-n,. coupled with the issuance o. lil ]S

beyond authority, thereby squarely warranting exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, this Court rejects the ground of maintainability raised by Respondertt No. 2 and holds that Writ Petition is maintainable.

18. POINT {iil: As can be seen from the record, the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club is the club formed by employees of the Commercial Taxes Department, with its governing body nominated on a rotational basis amongst employee-players residing in Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and managed by non-gazetted ofhcers. Pursuant to Article 12 of its Bylaws, which governs qualifications for election as office bearers and stipulates that no person shall be eligible unless an employee of the Commercial Taxes Department and a member of either the AP Commercial Taxes Non-Gazetted Ofhcers' Association, Hyderabad, or the APCT Gazetted Officers' Association. Article 12 is reproduced hereu nder: " Article 12. QUALIFICATIOM .FOR ELECTION AS OFFICE BE,ARER: 1) No person shall be eligible for election for any of the post of oflice bearer unless he is an employee of Commercial Tax Department and a member of either in The AP Commercial Taxes Non-Gazetted Officers' Association, Hyderabad or APCT Gazetted Officers' Association.

2) Thc office bearers shall be eligible for re-election.

t6

Not withstanding as it contained in Ar.r Lcle 12(1) one can become office bearer temporarily with the a1; troval pf The APCTNGOs' Association if it is other than eml) oyce for the period specified.

Any office bearer who fails to attend i consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee sherll forego his membership unless such absence is due to vali<l reasons and with the prior approval of the president.,,

19. It can be further seen from administration of Commercial Taxes Cricker temporarily entrusted to the body led by B. Sr-Lr Semwal, invoking.the proviso to Article l2(l), uidt 30.11.2024 addressed to the Telangana Comnr NGOs Association Hyderabad, with formal per.r granted urde Association's reply letter dated OT.1,2., period from 07.12.2024 to 06.12.2025 or until r legai issues, whichever is earlier. Upon expiry of th,: the said body duly handed over charge to petitione. Shaik Jalalud din uide letter dated 06.12_2025, thcr= the erstwhile ofhce bearers in strict conformity with I

20. trven though as per Article 12 of byelaws, non-employees of Commercial Taxes Depz be part of the administration, since the body has n thn* to the Committee headed by Shaik Jal: I 'ecord that Club was heel Kumar letter dated rcial Taxes ission duly O24, for the :solution of said period, s Secretary, ry restoring he Bylaws. Petitioner's atment can rw reverted rdclin and

t7 presently all the members are employees of the Commercial Taxes Department, the discussion in this regard would be purely academic. Therefore, since it is brought on record and not disputed by Respondents that the club is now being administered and managed by Shaik Ja,laluddin as Secretary and that all the members are employees of Commercial Taxes Department working in the twin-cities, the objection raised by Respondent No. 3 no longer holds good. Therefore, this Court holds that writ is maintainable and there is no prohibition as per byelaws, rules and regulations of the Commercial Taxes Cricket Club to file the present Writ petition.

21. POINT liiil: As has been held in the preceding paragraphs, once the Ombudsman expressly declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, it could not have simultaneously directed petitioner ald Respondent No. 3 to approach civil Court nor could it have issued a direction to HCA to curtaii the rights of a full member that petitioner had been exercising for several decades. It is inconceivable that Ombr.rdsman having found that no case was made out by Respondent No.3, went ahead and issued a direction to Petitioner to approach civil Court and restricted its rights in the interregnum. Petitioner could not have been made to suffer the consequence of Respondent No. 3 not being able.to establish his ii; l8 case. Therefore, the direction issued by the O:r wholly arbitrary and an unsustainable and there I to be set aside.

22. Writ Petition No. 3Z9SO of 2O2S i allowed alld the direction given by the Ethicr; Ombudsman Additional Charge in Case No. 6 cf 29.11 .2024, at PaIa No. 7, directing borh the Il Respondent No. 3 to approach civil Court is set il said direction is confined only to RespondenL Nrr. Petitioner before the Ombudsman.

23. Further, since it is borne out b1. Petitioner has been exercising rights of full membe onwards till passing of the Order by the Ombucisrr Respondent No. 3 failed to produce a single docurr his right, interest or entitlement in the Corrrrrr, Cricket Club, the direction of the Ombudsman i.t:. settlement of the disputes with regard to the own: Clubs in the appropriate Court of Lau, Respondent/ HCA cannot entertain lhe claims c parties', is also set aside and Respondent No. 2 is continue to recognize Petitioner as a full member extend all the benehts to it till such time Respor approaches the competent civil Court and obtains () budsman is rre, deserves ; therefore, Officer and 2024 dated titioner and ;ide and the 3 u.ho was record that ' from 1987 rn and that :nt showing rcial Taxes )ending the 'ship of the the 2Dd

- bolh the dirccted to ,f HCA and Cent No. 3 'ders to the l l9 ervicas D ent, Secretariat, Hvd The erabad, Tela Secreta ry, H ngana, lndia yderabad Cricket Associ ation, Raji ndhi International Cricket Stadiuml Uppal, Hyderabad

3. The Secreta Commercial ryB Taxes Cric Venka ket Club, H_ No. 5 taiah Assistant Co -8-11 mmr To contra,rjr. In view of ariowing writ petition No. 37g50 0f 2025, no orders are required to be passed in writ petitiou No. 22!,61 of 2025, therefore, the same is closed.

24. Consequently, the misceilaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SdIMOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAI //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER 'l . The Principal Secreta ry, Sports and youth S

Complex, Opposite Chenetha Bhavan Nampa

One CC to SRI M.HAR EESH KUMAR , Advoca

5. Two CCs to GP FOR SPORTS, High Court for Hyderabad[oUI b One CC to SRI V.RAJENDER RAO, SC FOR HcA [OPUC

7. One CC to SRt K.SATHAKARNl, Advocate [OpUC]

8. Two CD Copres PSK/PMK ssioner Commercial Ta z, First Floor, 2nd Cent lly, Hyderabad-500001. te [OPUC] the State of Telangana XES, ury ,at l l '| Ji E

t' HIGH COURT DATED:0910112026

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.22361 AND 37950 of 2025 s :(\ 1F. SIArs 2 I JAN zt?E t D: ., r.-r ;-\'r,( \-. .--. (- :_ )l (

ALLOWING THE W.P.No.3795O OF 2025 qND CLOSING OF THE W.P.No.22361 OF 20i1t WITHOUT COSTS &1 \1 lat t