SANTHOSH KARUNAKARAN vs OMBUDSMAN CUM ETHICS OFFICER

2025 INSC 906
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021)


SANTHOSH KARUNAKARAN ..APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS

OMBUDSMAN CUM ETHICS
OFFICER, KERALA CRICKET
ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave takes exception to
st
the judgment dated 21 June, 2021, passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at
1
Ernakulam dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 413 of
2021 filed by the appellant and affirming the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.29
18:20:05 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
1

th
judgment dated 27 January, 2021, passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 28478
of 2020 filed by the appellant herein.
4. The aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 28478 of
2020 was filed by the appellant seeking to assail the
rd
order dated 3 October, 2020, passed by the
2
Ombudsman-cum-Ethics Officer in Original
Application No. 10 of 2019 rejecting the original
application filed by the appellant on the ground that
the appellant failed to implead the District Cricket
3
Associations despite clear directions issued vide
th th
orders dated 13 February, 2020; 25 February,
th
2020; and 10 March, 2020.
5. The appellant, a former Ranji Trophy player
representing the State of Kerala and member of
4
Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association ,
had approached the Ombudsman by way of Original
Application No. 10 of 2019 seeking following reliefs: -
“a. Frame a model byelaw to be implemented in
all the Districts of the State in terms of the model
Byelaw recommended by the Lodha Committee
and adopted by the Board of Control for Cricket
in India.

2
Hereinafter, referred to as “Ombudsman”.
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “DCAs”.
4
For Short “TDCA”.
2
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021

b. Direct the Kerala Cricket Association to
implement the Byelaw as framed by this Hon'ble
Forum in all the District units under the Kerala
Cricket Association.
c. Direct the Kerala Cricket Association to
conduct elections by ensuring representation
from each district under the Kerala Cricket
Association strictly in conformity with the
byelaws framed by this Hon’ble Forum.”

6. However, as stated above, the writ petition filed
by the appellant to challenge the order of the
Ombudsman came to be rejected by the High Court
and the Division Bench affirmed the order passed by
the Single Judge.
7. Pursuant to the rejection of the writ appeal, the
5
Kerala Cricket Association issued a show cause
notice to the appellant under Section 15(4)(s) of Bye-
laws of the KCA. The appellant replied to the show
th
cause notice on 24 July, 2021. Thereafter, the KCA
th
held a Special General Meeting on 8 August, 2021,
to discuss the action to be taken against the
nd
appellant and vide e-mail dated 22 August, 2021,
the KCA communicated its decision to blacklist the
appellant from all activities and imposed a life ban on
him, thereby disassociating him from the KCA and its
affiliated units and forfeiting all his rights and

5
For short, “KCA”.
3
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021

privileges as a registered member of the TDCA. The
aforesaid order passed by the KCA has been brought
on record as an additional document.
8. The primary grievance of the appellant before
the learned Single Judge as well as in the writ appeal
was that the proceedings before the Ombudsman
were absolutely non-transparent and he was never
th
made aware of the orders dated 13 February, 2020;
th th
25 February, 2020; and 10 March, 2020, passed
by the Ombudsman, directing the impleadment of
DCAs in the original application filed by him. In order
to fortify this contention, the appellant has placed
th
reliance on his e-mails dated 19 October, 2020, and
th
28 October, 2020, addressed to the Ombudsman,
requesting for copy of all records of the proceedings
in the original application. The Ombudsman, vide e-
th
mail dated 5 November, 2020, denied the said
request on the ground that the Ombudsman of the
KCA is a persona designata and not a court of record
and since the original application had been disposed
of, the proceedings could not be provided.
9. It is in this backdrop that the appellant has
approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the
orders passed by the Ombudsman and the High
4
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021

Court and the subsequent orders of the KCA
blacklisting him from participating further in the
proceedings related to Cricket in the State of Kerala.
10. Having heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel representing the respondents and
st
after going through the impugned order dated 21
nd
June, 2021, and the order of blacklisting dated 22
August, 2021, we are of the opinion that the High
Court has taken a very harsh view in rejecting the
writ petition and the writ appeal preferred by the
appellant on the purported ground of concealment of
material facts concluding that the appellant had
approached the writ court with unclean hands.
11. The appellant had made out a plausible case to
suggest that the proceedings before the Ombudsman
were non-transparent and that the copies of the
relevant records/orders were not provided to the
appellant. The documents and communications
placed on record also suggest that many a times, it
became difficult for the appellant and his counsel to
address the Ombudsman during the proceedings of
the original application because the virtual hearing
gateway was frequently interrupted without any
5
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021

nd
justification. The earlier order dated 2 August,
2019, passed by the Ombudsman observing that the
impleadment of the DCAs may entail unnecessary
delay, definitely gave rise to a reasonable belief to the
appellant that he was not under any obligation to
implead the DCAs in the original application filed
before the Ombudsman. Otherwise also, the only
prayer of the appellant in the original application was
to frame uniform Bye-laws in sync with the
recommendations of the Justice R.M. Lodha
Committee.
12. Thus, the application filed by the appellant was
not in form of any adversarial litigation requiring the
mandatory opportunity of hearing to the DCAs.
13. As an upshot of the above discussion, the
rd
impugned order dated 3 October, 2020 passed by
th
the Ombudsman and judgments dated 27 January,
st
2021 and 21 June, 2021 passed by the High Court
are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
decision of the KCA in blacklisting the appellant is
also struck down and set aside. The proceedings of
the Original Application No. 10 of 2019 filed by the
appellant before the Ombudsman shall stand revived.
The concerned parties shall be provided an
6
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021

opportunity of hearing, and the original application
shall be decided afresh by the Ombudsman by
passing a reasoned order within a period of three
months from the date of submission of certified copy
of this judgment.
14. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 29, 2025.

7
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 12903 of 2021