Table Tennis Federation Of India vs Kamlesh Mehta & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.05.2026
+ LPA 397/2026
TABLE TENNIS FEDERATION OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Avi Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parth Goswami, Mr. Prateek
Som, Mr. Ramjeet Pawar, Mr. Ayush
Yadav, Mr. Amaan Shreyas, Ms.
Mannat Tipnis, Ms. Punya Rekha
Angara, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms.
Vasundhra N., Ms. Sona Singh, Ms.
Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjom
Singh Mandla, Mr. Manish Kumar,
Ms. Tanvi Anand and Mr. Rajarshi
Roy, Advocates.
Versus
KAMLESH MEHTA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate, Mr.
Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate, Mr.
Abhishek Malhotra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kartikay Dutta, Ms.
Anukriti Tribedi, Ms. Aahna
Mehrotra, Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Mr.
Shivansh Soni, Mr. Suvan Jain and
Mr. Harsh Bector, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Udit Dedhiya, SPC, Mr. Akshit
Mohan, GP, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.
R.V. Prabhat, Mr. Shubham Sharma,
Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr.
Naman and Ms. Apurva Sachdev,
Advocates for R-3.

LPA 397/2026 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

Ms. Aashita Khanna, Ms. Aanya
Agarwal, Mr. Neil M. Goswami, Mr.
Ritwik Prakash, Advocates for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )

CAV 249/2026
1. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 / Caveator has appeared.
2. The Caveat stands discharged.
CM Nos. 35012/2026 & 35013/2026
3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
4. The Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 397/2026
5. The present intra-court Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated
11.05.2026 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed in W.P.(C) No.1680/2026
(“ Writ Petition ”) whereby the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was
disposed of by setting aside the Resolution dated 28.01.2026 passed by the
Executive Committee of the Appellant under Clause 11(d) of the
Memorandum of Association (“ MoA ”) temporarily suspending Respondent
No. 1, the Secretary General of the Appellant pending enquiry by a duly
constituted Enquiry Committee for operational and financial irregularities
and constituting an Enquiry Authority to inquire into the conduct and
functioning of the Appellant, including but not limited to the office bearers
of the Appellant.

LPA 397/2026 Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

6. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under:
6.1 The election of the Executive Committee of the Appellant was
conducted on 05.12.2022 pursuant order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.10590/2021 titled as Ms. Manika Batra v. Table
Tennis Federation of India in accordance with the provisions of the
National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (“ Sports Code ”) and the
MoA of the Appellant. Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vineet Saran, former
Judge of the Supreme Court of India was appointed as the Returning Officer
for the conduct of the said election, wherein Ms. Meghna Ahlawat was
elected as the President of the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 was elected
as the Secretary General of the Appellant.
6.2 On 06.01.2026, the President of the Appellant issued a notice
convening an Executive Committee Meeting (“ ECM” ) and Annual General
Meeting (“ AGM” ) of the Appellant on 28.01.2026 at 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM
respectively.
6.3 Vide notice dated 09.01.2026, Respondent No. 1 in his capacity as
Secretary General of the Appellant convened a Special General Meeting
(“ SGM” ) on 17.01.2026.

6.4 The SGM was held on 17.01.2026, which was chaired by Senior Vice
President of the Appellant as the President of the Appellant was absent and
the Minutes of the Meeting recorded resolutions declaring ECM / AGM
notice dated 06.01.2026 as invalid.
6.5 On 28.01.2026, ECM / AGM were held pursuant to the notice dated
06.01.2026. ECM was attended by 8 out of 19 members of the Executive
LPA 397/2026 Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

Committee and EGM was attended by representative of 18 out of 34
member State Associations. By the Resolution passed in ECM and approved
by the AGM (“ Impugned Resolution ”), the Executive Committee in
exercise of power under Clause 11(d) of the MoA declared Respondent No.
1 as persona non-grata and suspended him from the post of Secretary
General of the Appellant pending the outcome of an inquiry to be conducted
by the Enquiry Committee comprising of Mr. Chetan Gurung, Mr. Samar
Jeet Singh and Mr. Sundara Varadhan (“ Enquiry Committee” ).
6.6 On 30.01.2026, Respondent No. 1 was intimated of the passing of the
Impugned Resolution by e-mail addressed by the Vice President of the
Appellant and it was also informed to Respondent No. 1 that a Show Cause
Notice shall be issued separately granting him an adequate and fair
opportunity to submit his explanation and to defend himself against the
charges forming the basis of the action.
6.7 Respondent No. 1 instituted the Writ Petition inter alia assailing the
Impugned Resolution and the constitution of the Enquiry Committed on
04.02.2026.
6.8 Vide Impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition was disposed of by
observing that the principles of natural justice would be read into Clause
11(d) of the MoA and thereby setting aside the Impugned Resolution on the
ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The
Impugned Judgment quashed all the actions taken pursuant to the Impugned
Resolution, including the constitution of the Enquiry Committee and
appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Krishna Murari, former Judge of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as the Enquiry Authority to enquire into the
LPA 397/2026 Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

conduct and functioning of the Appellant, including its office bearers, with
the remuneration of Enquiry Authority to be borne by the Appellant.
6.9 Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant has preferred
the present Appeal.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the
Impugned Judgment travels beyond the prayers sought in the Writ Petition
which were limited to declaring Clause 11 of the MoA unconstitutional,
quashing the Impugned Resolution, restoration of Respondent No. 1 and
quashing the constitution of the Enquiry Committee. There was no prayer
sought for constituting an Enquiry Authority into the Appellant’s affairs. It
was further submitted that neither the President nor any office bearer of the
Appellant was arrayed as a party in the individual capacity and despite that
the Impugned Judgment passes strictures against the President and directs
enquiry into the conduct of “all office bearers” of the Appellant without
even giving an opportunity to explain or defend themselves, which is in
violation of the most basic principles of natural justice.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
finding in Paragraph No. 2 of the Impugned Judgment that “two factions”
exists within the Appellant has no factual foundation in the pleadings of the
Writ Petition.
10. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Impugned
Judgment is contrary to the settled law that the Courts exercising the writ
jurisdiction must exercise restraint in interfering with the affairs of a
LPA 397/2026 Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

National Sports Federation (“ NSF ”) registered as an autonomous society
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was submitted that the
internal disciplinary mechanisms, management decisions and elective
contests within such a Society are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
Impugned Judgment fails to define the scope, role, mandate, terms of
reference, procedure or consequence of the Enquiry Authority thereby
rendering its constitution a roving and fishing exercise into the Appellant’s
affairs without any directions or limit.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
divergence of views amongst the elected office bearers of a Society is
natural in a democratic governance. It was submitted that mere
disagreement between the President and the Secretary General cannot be
elevated to “two factions fighting for control” and such a standard would
subject every elected body to external enquiry, destroying the autonomy of
all Societies. It was further submitted that a writ court may ordinarily not
direct any enquiry into the affairs of a Society unless the gravest
circumstances exist of evident malfeasance. However, the Impugned
Judgment has directed to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the Appellant
and its office bearers without there being any prima facie finding of
irregularities solely on unsubstantiated allegations made by Respondent No.
1 after his suspension.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
learned Single Judge has erroneously imported a requirement of pre-
decisional hearing into Clause 11(d) of the MoA. It was submitted that the
LPA 397/2026 Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

MoA has consciously excluded pre-decisional hearing where immediate
action may be necessary to prevent irreparable harm, however, the said
deliberate scheme has been disregarded in the Impugned Judgment.
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it is
settled law that principles of natural justice may be imported only where not
excluded expressly or by necessary implication, as in the present case. It
was further submitted that the bye-laws of a Society are in the nature of a
private contract among the members and are not amenable to challenge on
the fundamental rights grounds, especially by Respondent No. 1 who is not
even a member of the Appellant Society. It was submitted that Respondent
No. 1 has no fundamental right to be elected in the office of the Secretary
General of the Appellant and his rights derive solely from the MoA.
15. It was further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
that having availed the benefit of MoA as Secretary General since 2022,
Respondent No. 1 is estopped from challenging Clause 11(d) of the MoA
as unconstitutional.
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that even
assuming natural justice is to be read into Clause 11(d) of the MoA, the
post-suspension enquiry before a duly constituted Enquiry Committee is a
substantial compliance of principles of natural justice.
17. It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
that the Impugned Resolution was ratified by the AGM on the same date and
this ratification was never challenged in the Writ Petition. It was submitted
that in absence of such a challenge, the Impugned Resolution could not have
been set aside without setting aside the Resolution passed by the AGM. It
LPA 397/2026 Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

was further submitted that it is the settled law that suspension pending a
disciplinary enquiry is a permissible interim measure and does not amount to
punishment. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously
substituted the decision of the duly elected Executive Committee ratified by
the AGM without returning any finding of mala fide or that the allegations
are unsubstantiated.
18. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the public functions
of an NSF are limited to selection of teams and international representation
and not internal management or disciplinary matters as held in Ajay Jadeja
v. Union of India , (2002) 95 DLT 14. It was submitted that selective
invocation of writ jurisdiction for a purely internal dispute is impermissible.
19. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that
Clause 34 of the MoA provides for arbitration and given the complex factual
questions, the Writ Petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of
existence of an alternative remedy. In W.P.(C) No.4491/2024, Respondent
No. 1 himself took a position that arbitration is an efficacious remedy for
membership and disciplinary disputes. It was submitted that the learned
Single Judge wrongly observed that the constitutional courts are better
suited than private mechanisms.
20. In view of the same, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant that the Impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside.
21. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the
Impugned Judgment has rightly been passed considering the conduct of the
Executive Committee of the Appellant whereby Respondent No. 1 was
declared as personal non grata without giving an opportunity of hearing in
LPA 397/2026 Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted
that Respondent No. 1 was elected as Secretary General through court-
monitored elections held on 05.12.2022 and since then the President of the
Appellant has been continuing with irregularities and unilateral actions. It
was further submitted that the Impugned Resolution was unconstitutional as
it relies on illegal provision of Clause 11(d) of the MoA which allows
unilateral and arbitrary suspension of an elected official of the Appellant
without providing any opportunity to be heard.
22. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the
suspension of the Respondent No.1 was void ab initio as Article 11 of the
MoA contains ambiguous language allowing the President of the Appellant
to take unilateral action without following the due process of providing an
opportunity of hearing, which is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. It
was submitted that entire process of passing Impugned Resolution was
marred by arbitrariness, mala fide and absence of due process that violated
the rights of Respondent No. 1 to fair procedure under Articles 14, 19 and
21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
23. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
constitution of Enquiry Authority to enquire into the conduct and
functioning of the Appellant including the office bearers of the Appellant
has rightly been directed in view of the two rival factions within the
Appellant. It was submitted that such a direction to hold enquiry into the
affairs of the Appellant had become necessary on account of the conduct of
the President and the other office bearers of the Appellant. It was submitted
that the learned Single Judge has appointed a former Judge of the Hon’ble
LPA 397/2026 Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

Supreme Court of India as the Enquiry Authority in view of the fact that 8
out of 19 members of the Executive Committee have already voted against
Respondent No. 1 while passing the Impugned Resolution and therefore the
Enquiry Committee consisting of the members of the Executive Committee
would be biased against Respondent No. 1.

24. In view of the above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the present Appeal.
25. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of learned
Senior Counsel for the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 1.
26. At the outset, we observe that Appellant being a Society registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is bound by its own Regulations
and to the extent that the Appellant is not performing a public function such
as selection of teams and international representation, the exercise of writ
jurisdiction to interfere with the internal affairs of the Society is limited to
extremely exceptional circumstances.
27. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has held that the Writ
Petition was maintainable in the interest of sports in general and larger
common good in the world of sport to ensure that NSFs follow the
procedure prescribed by the statutes, regulations and declarations by the
Court.
28. Accordingly, the main question to be determined in this Appeal is
whether the appointment of Enquiry Authority in the Impugned Judgment
by the learned Single Judge to enquire into the conduct and functioning of
the Appellant including the office bearers of the Appellant was justified in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
LPA 397/2026 Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

29. Further, it is required to be determined whether the reading down of
Clause 11(d) of the MoA to include the principles of natural justice into the
said Clause was justified in the Impugned Judgment.
30. Clause 11 of the MoA reads as under:
“11. EXPLUSION OR SUSPENSION
a) If a member or player refuses or neglects to comply with any
provision of the rules or is guilty of such conduct as the
Committee/Board deems or considers likely to endanger the
harmony or affect the character, stability and interest of the
Federation, such a member or player shall be liable to expulsion
or suspension for such period as the Committee may fix.
Thereupon at least fourteen clear days’ notice of such decision to
suspend or expel shall be given in writing to the member or
player who shall be at liberty to give an explanation or to present
a defence in writing within fourteen days from the receipt of the
said notice.
b) The explanation or defence in writing shall be considered in
another meeting of the Committee/Board and out of the two-
thirds of Members present, whatever decision comes in simple
majority shall be final. In case voting is taken by circulation of
paper, the decision in simple majority will be considered as final.
c) To protect the interest of the players and the administration of
the expelled / suspended member association or institution,
Executive Board/Executive Committee may appoint an adhoc
committee at their discretion.
d) The Committee, may, at a regular meeting declare a person for
life or for specific period, as a person non-grata with the
Federation if it finds that the Committee deems or considers
likely to endanger the harmony or affect the character, stability
and interest of the Federation, such a decision to be taken by a
majority of at least two thirds of the members of the Committee
present. The person so declared shall not be considered by the
Federation for election to any office or committee in the State
unit concerned during the period so specified. If, however, the
person concerned is already holding any office in the Federation
and / or any of the affiliated units, he shall on such declaration
ipso-facto cease to hold the office for the period so specified.”
LPA 397/2026 Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02



31. The learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment has observed
that although there is no specific provision for a hearing in Clause 11(d) of
the MoA, there is nothing in the said Clause, which in explicit terms
excludes the application of the said principle. Therefore, the Impugned
Resolution which was passed pursuant to Clause 11(d) of the MoA declaring
Respondent No. 1 as persona non-grata has rightly been set aside.

32. The learned Single Judge has also appointed the Enquiry Authority to
conduct enquiry into the functioning of the Appellant on account of the
allegations made against two of the highest office bearers of the Appellant to
justify such an enquiry being conducted in the affairs of the Appellant.
33. It is settled law that a writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere
with the NSF in relation to the internal affairs and disciplinary mechanisms
so long as the NSF is not exercising public functions. In the present case,
the Impugned Resolution was passed under the provisions of 11(d) of the
MoA, which has been read down by the learned Single Judge in the
Impugned Judgment to include the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the Impugned Resolution has been set aside.
34. However, the Impugned Judgment does not provide for the
consequential right of the Appellant to pass a fresh resolution under Clause
11(d) of the MoA after following the principles of natural justice.
35. Further, the direction of appointing Enquiry Authority to enquire into
the affairs of the Appellant was based on allegations made by Respondent
No. 1 without there being any prayer for the same. The scope of the Enquiry
Authority appointed vide Impugned Judgment is open-ended and does not
LPA 397/2026 Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

specify the extent to which the mandate of the Enquiry Authority would
extend.
36. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no justification for
constituting an Enquiry Authority to look into the affairs and functioning of
the Appellant including the office bearers of the Appellant, without giving
opportunity to such office bearers as they were not even party to the Writ
Petition and also because exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution in relation to internal affairs of a society, especially relating to
membership dispute or issues relating to action in respect of conduct /
misconduct of an office bearer is extremely limited.
37. In view of the above, the Impugned Judgment to the extent that it
appoints an Enquiry Authority to examine the affairs of the Appellant and its
office bearers is required to be interfered. Further, the consequential relief
on setting aside the Impugned Resolution would have to follow in case the
Appellant wishes to take fresh action against Respondent No. 1 pursuant to
Clause 11(d) of the MoA after following the principles of natural justice.
38. Accordingly, the following directions contained in the Impugned
Judgment are modified as under:

(i) The setting aside of Impugned Resolution passed by the Executive
Committee of the Appellant declaring Respondent No. 1 as persona
non-grata is upheld;
(ii) The reading down of Clause 11(d) of the MoA to read the principles
of natural justice into Clause 11(d) of the MoA is upheld;
(iii) The Executive Committee of the Appellant shall be at liberty to pass
fresh resolution under Clause 11(d) of the MoA after following the
principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of hearing to
LPA 397/2026 Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02

Respondent No. 1 before passing any such resolution; and
(iv) The direction to conduct enquiry into the affairs of the Appellant by
enquiring into the conduct and functioning of the Appellant and its
office bearers is hereby set aside and it is directed that if the situation
so warrants and an enquiry is required to be conducted into the
misconduct of Respondent No. 1, the same shall be conducted by the
Enquiry Authority appointed by the learned Single Judge in the
Impugned Judgment. It is clarified that the mandate and scope of the
enquiry to be conducted by the Enquiry Authority shall be limited to
the misconduct of Respondent No. 1 alone and it will not expand to
the affairs of the Appellant including the conduct and functioning of
the Appellant and its office bearers.
39. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All rights and
contentions of Parties on merits of the dispute are kept open and they shall
be entitled to raise all pleas that may be available to them in accordance with
law in appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.


TEJAS KARIA, J



DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 22, 2026
‘gsr’
LPA 397/2026 Page 14 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:24.05.2026
14:02