Uttar Pradesh Kho Kho Association vs Kho Kho Federation Of India & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 24.04.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 04.06.2026
+ LPA 305/2026, CM APPL. 27219/2026, CM APPL. 27221/2026 &
CM APPL. 27222/2026
UTTAR PRADESH KHO KHO ASSOCIATION ....Appellant
versus
KHO KHO FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Vanshita
Gupta and Mr. Siddhartha,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Shekar Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sachin Chopra, Mr. Anuj
Tyagi, Ms. Maitry Kakade, Ms. Astha
Gupta and Ms. Shreelekha Vyas,
Advocates for R1.
Mr. Devvrat Yadav, SPC with Mr.
Nipun Jain, GP and Mr. Kush Garg,
Advocates for UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
1. This intra-court Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
18.02.2026 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed by the learned Single Judge in
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 1 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

W.P.(C) 5375/2023 (“ Writ Petition ”), whereby the Appellant’s prayer for
recognition of the elections of its Executive Committee (“ EC ”) held on
27.10.2021, was rejected and the Writ Petition was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, and is engaged in the promotion and development of the sport of
Kho Kho in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent No. 1 is the National
Sports Federation governing the sport of Kho Kho in India. It has several
affiliated State associations responsible for administering the sport within
their respective States. Respondent No. 1 is also recognised by Respondent
No. 3 and enjoys various facilities and concessions extended by the
Government of India.
3. According to the Appellant, it was one of the founding members of
Respondent No. 1 and continued to function as the affiliated association for
the State of Uttar Pradesh until January 2020, when it was de-affiliated by
Respondent No. 1 by office order dated 30.01.2020. The Appellant alleges
that the said action was taken pursuant to a communication dated 19.12.2019
issued by its former President, stating that the Appellant had been dissolved
on account of the then General Secretary’s failure to maintain and furnish
documents sought by Respondent No. 1.
4. Further, by the aforesaid office order dated 30.01.2020, Respondent
No. 1 constituted an Interim Committee (“ IC ”) to manage the affairs of the
Appellant organization. It is the Appellant’s case that the said order was
founded on the alleged dissolution of the Appellant by its then President,
Mr. Sanjay Pratap Singh.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 2 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

5. On 16.01.2021, the office bearers of District Kho Kho Association,
Bijnor and District Kho Kho Association, Moradabad, both affiliated to the
Appellant, instituted W.P.(C) 863/2021 challenging the validity of
Respondent No. 1’s office order dated 30.01.2020, whereby the IC had been
appointed to manage the Appellant’s affairs. The said writ petition was
disposed of by order dated 09.08.2021, recording the agreement of the
Parties that fresh elections be held under the supervision of a retired Judge
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Accordingly, this Court
appointed Justice D.P. Singh, former Judge of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, as the Returning Officer to conduct elections to the Executive
Committee (“ EC ”) of the Appellant. It was further observed that, since the
Parties were not ad idem with respect to the electoral college, the Returning
Officer would finalise the same after considering the objections of all
aggrieved Parties.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
863/2021, the Returning Officer conducted the elections to the Appellant’s
EC and declared the results on 27.10.2021. The said elections were
conducted on the basis of the observations recorded by the learned
Returning Officer in his order dated 03.10.2021, wherein it was observed as
under:
“ Wherefore, after considering the Model Election Guidelines and
the provision contained in the Societies Registration Act and Rules
framed there under, and keeping in view the order dated 01.10.2021,
the Model Election Guidelines and surrounding facts and
circumstances I proceed to hold the election in the following
manner:-
1. It is for the elected body to make change in the memorandum
of association in case they advise to do so, only procedural aspect
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 3 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

may be taken into account for the election under the Model Election
Guidelines with appropriate modification.
2. Attention has been invited to Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18609
of 2019 order dated 18.09.2021 of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court
whereby the Hon’ble Court held that National Federation has no
right to interfere with the election of State Association. The
operative portion is reproduced as under-
“ 10. I say that the opp. Party no. 4 has not insisted the
National Sports Development Code, 2011 on any State
Members. I say that the National Sports Development
Code, 2011 are executive Orders passed by the Ministry
of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India which
are applicable only on National Sports Federations and
not on State Associations. Copy of the Letter dated
01.05.2010 issued by the Opp. Party No. 1 to the NSF’s
and IOA regarding age and tenure Guidelines is marked
as Annexure-R4/C.
11. That I say that, on various occasions the Op.
Party No. 4 required appointment of Ad-hoc Committees;
but the same was impugned in different proceedings
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi t
and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court deprecated
appointment of such Ad-hoc Committee and in case
required to make such appointment only with the leave of
the Hon’ble Court.
12. I say that the opp. Party No. 4 all along insist the
national federation to act fairly and to ensure its State
Association free from Government and political
interference. However, disputes the being between the
petitioner and Opp. Party No. 2, the deponent restrains
from passing any comments on the allegations made in
the writ petition. And seeks the leave to file detail counter
affidavit in case, required/south for by the Hon’ble
Court.”
3. The nomination shall be filed for the election for the post of
office bearer and member of the Managing Committee in
accordance to the Model Election Guidelines, nomination shall be
delivered personally to the returning officer in person by the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 4 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

candidates along the prosper and seconder. Nomination shall be
held for two days on the notified dates during working hour that is
11 am to 3 pm. The candidate shall write down their e-mail id in the
nomination paper at bottom.
4. List of all nominations received shall be prepared post-wise
in Form 3 on the next date i.e., the third day from the
commencement of the election and displayed in the office provide by
Director Sports, U.P. representing the Sports Council. The outcome
of the scrutiny of the election paper shall be communicated through
e-mail to all candidate immediately. During scrutiny it shall be open
for the candidate to be present in the office.
5. The list of validly nominated candidates shall be prepared in
form 4 with due circulation through e-mail to all the candidates who
filed nomination.
6. The candidate shall be entitled to withdraw within two
working days from the date of publication of Form 4. The notice of
withdrawal of the candidate shall be submitted in Form 5 of the
Model Election Guidelines. On the very next day after the date of
withdrawal, a final list of the contesting candidates shall be
prepared in Form 6 and shall be duly communicated to all the
candidates. The final list of contesting candidate shall be prepared
in Form 6 with the help of Assistant Returning Officer. The election
shall be held after two working days from the date of publication of
the final list in Form 6 to enable Director of Sports to make
necessary arrangement along with police security. At the distance of
10 feet from the ballot box, each candidate or his representative may
be present to witness the counting of vote. The result shall be
pronounced on public address system (mic) and be communicated to
all the candidates through e-mail. The result shall be declared
immediately after counting in Form 15 and shall be duly
communicated for all concern for follow-up action by the Director
of Sports and Kho Kho Federation of India. Director of Sports shall
install video cameras in and outside the polling station during
course of voting and counting.
7. The Director Sports, U.P. is requested to facilitate the
election and provide all necessary assistance as well as
infrastructure to enforce the order date 09.08.2021 and 13.08.2021
o the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 5 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

8. Joint Director Sports, Sri Anil Banudha is engaged and
appointed as the Assistant Returning Officer to make necessary
arrangement as aforesaid.
9. List of electoral college shall be prepared from the list date
30.07.2017 submitted by the Director Sports in Form 1 with
appropriate amendment and will be duly communicated to all
person concerned.
10. The scheme of election shall be published in two newspapers,
one in Hindi and one in English by the Director of Sports/ Assistant
Returning Officer with prior approval.
11. Every candidate during the course of casting vote shall come
with Aadhar Card and two copies of Memorandum of Association
out of which one copy shall be handed over at the verification table
to the person concerned.
The number of the office bearers and number of post shall be
same as provided in the bye-laws and Memorandum of Association
being binding under the Societies Registration Act and rules framed
therein under.
12. Copy of order may be communicate to all concerned person
including the registrar of the Delhi High Court being passed in
order 09.08.2021 in W.P. (C) 863/2021 & CM APPL 2275/2021.
Order dated 1.10.2021 stand modified accordingly. ”
7. Accordingly, the learned Returning Officer proceeded on the premise
that the elections were required to be conducted in accordance with the
Model Election Guidelines, and not under the National Sports Development
Code, 2011 (“ Sports Code ”), on the understanding that the latter was
inapplicable to elections of State Associations such as the Appellant. In
support of the said view, reliance was placed on an order dated 18.09.2021
purported to have been passed by the High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C)
18609/2019.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 6 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

8. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 filed CM APPL. 36514/2021 in
W.P.(C) 863/2021, inter alia , contending that no such order had in fact been
passed by the High Court of Orissa, that the learned Returning Officer had
recorded serious observations on the basis of a non-existent order contrary to
law, and that the elections conducted under his supervision were in violation
of the Sports Code as well as the Constitution of Respondent No. 1.
9. Vide order dated 12.10.2021, it was recorded that Respondent No. 1
sought leave to withdraw the said application with liberty to raise all
objections at the appropriate stage in appropriate proceedings. The
application was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed
for.
10. After the declaration of the election results on 27.10.2021, the
Appellant addressed a communication dated 03.11.2021 to Respondent No.
1 seeking recognition of its newly elected Executive Committee (“ EC ”).
The said communication was followed by several further representations
seeking re-affiliation of the Appellant with Respondent No. 1. Since no
favourable decision ensued, the Appellant instituted a contempt petition,
being CCP 931/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2022.
By the said order, it was observed that Respondent No. 1 had sought certain
documents from the petitioners therein for the purpose of considering the
Appellant’s re-affiliation, and Respondent No. 1 was directed to take a
decision within four weeks of receipt of the said documents.
11. The Appellant asserts that the requisite documents were duly
furnished to Respondent No. 1 in terms of the aforesaid order dated
11.02.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant instituted W.P.(C) 15048/2022, which
was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2022 directing Respondent No. 1 to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 7 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

complete the exercise contemplated by the order dated 11.02.2022 with due
expedition, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to all concerned Parties.
12. On 01.12.2022, Respondent No. 1 issued an office order constituting
the Affiliation and Election Review Committee (“ AERC ”) to examine the
Appellant’s application for recognition after granting the Appellant an
opportunity of hearing.
13. Pursuant thereto, the AERC, by letter dated 01.12.2022, informed the
Appellant that it would be afforded an opportunity to furnish the documents
sought by Respondent No. 1 through its earlier communications and to
explain the reasons for the non-submission thereof. It was further intimated
that a hearing had been scheduled on 05.12.2022 for further consideration of
the Appellant’s request for re-affiliation, and the Appellant was requested to
nominate two representatives to appear before the AERC with the necessary
explanation and supporting documents.
14. In response, the Appellant, by communication dated 05.12.2022,
reiterated that all available documents had already been furnished to
Respondent No. 1 and requested that recognition be accorded to the
Executive Committee elected under the supervision of the learned Returning
Officer.
15. Thereafter, the AERC submitted its report to Respondent No. 1
recommending rejection of the Appellant’s application for re-affiliation. The
AERC observed that any grant of re-affiliation notwithstanding the
irregularities noted on record would set an undesirable precedent for other
member associations by signalling that the Memorandum of Respondent No.
1 could be disregarded with impunity. The AERC further recommended that
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 8 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

Respondent No. 1 consider taking action in relation to the alleged
misappropriation of Government funds, subject to confirmation from the
available records.
16. At its meeting held on 28.06.2023, the General Council of
Respondent No. 1 considered the aforesaid report of the AERC and, in view
of the findings recorded therein, rejected the Appellant’s application for re-
affiliation.
17. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant instituted the Writ Petition, which
came to be dismissed by the Impugned Judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge. The present Appeal has accordingly been preferred assailing
the said Impugned Judgment.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
18. The learned Counsel for the Appellant advanced the following
submissions:
18.1. The learned Returning Officer adopted the framework of
conducting the elections in accordance with the Model Election
Guidelines, and not the Sports Code, based on the legal position
as it stood on 27.10.2021. This understanding was also fortified
by the counter affidavit dated 18.09.2021 filed by the Indian
Olympic Association before the High Court of Orissa in
W.P.(C) 18609/2021, wherein it was categorically stated that
the Sports Code applies only to National Sports Federations and
not to State Associations.
18.2. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court dated 16.08.2022 in W.P.(C) 195/2010,
titled Rahul Mehra v. Union of India & Ors. , which came to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 9 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

be rendered nearly ten months after the conclusion of the
elections in question. The retrospective application of the
principles enunciated in Rahul Mehra (supra) so as to
invalidate elections already concluded is impermissible in law.
18.3. The learned Returning Officer conducted the elections and
declared the results on 27.10.2021. Notwithstanding full
knowledge of the said results, Respondent No. 1 did not
institute any proceedings challenging either the elections
themselves or the orders passed by the learned Returning
Officer. Accordingly, the election results have attained finality
and are binding upon the Parties.
18.4. Vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in CCP 931/2021, it was
expressly recorded that the learned Returning Officer’s report
and the election results would be treated as part of the record,
the same having remained unchallenged. Hence, Respondent
No. 1 is precluded, whether by principles analogous to estoppel
or res judicata , from assailing the elections in subsequent
proceedings.
18.5. The Impugned Judgment places undue reliance upon the AERC
report prepared at the instance of Respondent No. 1, while
disregarding the concluding observations of the learned
Returning Officer, wherein, inter alia , it was noted that
Respondent No. 1 had attempted to interfere with the electoral
process.
18.6. The Appellant was disaffiliated unlawfully by Respondent No.
1 based on a fraudulent communication dated 19.12.2019
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 10 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

allegedly issued by Mr. Sanjay Pratap Singh, the erstwhile
President of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 constituted a
parallel body under the name ‘UP Amateur Kho Kho
Association’, registered on 25.01.2021, whose membership
substantially overlapped with that of the Interim Committee
appointed by Respondent No. 1.
18.7. The documents sought by Respondent No. 1 are stated to
pertain to the financial records of a bank account jointly
operated by Mr. Sanjay Singh, who had been appointed as
Chairman of the Interim Committee by Respondent No. 1 and
who was deliberately withholding the said records in order to
obstruct the Appellant’s re-affiliation.
18.8. In view of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that the
present Appeal be allowed and the Impugned Judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge be set aside. In the alternative, it is
prayed that fresh elections of the Appellant association be
directed to be conducted under the supervision of a Returning
Officer appointed by this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
19. The learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 advanced the
following submissions:
19.1. The repeated failure of the Appellant to furnish the material
information sought by Respondent No. 1 clearly demonstrates
that the affairs of the Appellant association were being
conducted in a state of disarray and in breach of the
Constitution of Respondent No. 1 as well as the Sports Code.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 11 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

19.2. Since the year 2017, the Appellant was repeatedly called upon
by Respondent No. 1 to furnish particulars relating to its last
held elections, the composition of its electoral college, its
audited accounts, and the names and number of its affiliated
District Units; however, the Appellant failed to provide the said
information despite repeated requisitions.
19.3. Despite the directions issued by this Court vide order dated
22.12.2021 passed in CCP 931/2021, the Appellant failed to
furnish the complete information and documents sought by
Respondent No. 1. The elections in the Appellant association,
conducted pursuant to this Court’s order dated 09.08.2021 in
W.P.(C) 863/2021, were not held in conformity with either the
Sports Code or the Constitution of Respondent No. 1. Certain
elected office bearers, being Government employees who had
previously held elective positions in sports bodies, were
ineligible under the Sports Code.
19.4. The learned Returning Officer was misled by reliance upon a
fabricated order purportedly passed by the High Court of
Orissa, which came to be extensively referred to in the order
dated 03.10.2021. Such reliance vitiated the electoral process
from its inception, inasmuch as the learned Returning Officer
proceeded on the erroneous premise that the Sports Code was
inapplicable to the Appellant’s elections and that only the
Model Election Guidelines governed the field.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 12 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

19.5. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the
present Appeal be dismissed and that the Impugned Judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge be affirmed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
20. We have heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the
material placed on record. The principal contention advanced on behalf of
the Appellant is that the reliance placed in the Impugned Judgment upon
Rahul Mehra v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) is misconceived, inasmuch
as the elections of the Appellant association had concluded and the results
thereof were declared on 27.10.2021, whereas the judgment in Rahul Mehra
(supra) came to be rendered subsequently on 16.08.2022, nearly ten months
thereafter.
21. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise, it is contended by the Appellant
that the legal position obtaining on the date when the elections were
conducted stood at variance with the law subsequently declared in Rahul
Mehra (supra), and that, consequently, the said decision could not have been
applied retrospectively so as to invalidate an electoral process already
concluded.
22. It is, however, material to note that the Impugned Judgment has
placed reliance not only upon Rahul Mehra (supra), but also upon the
subsequent judgment of this Court dated 10.02.2023 in W.P.(C) 8915/2019,
titled K.P. Rao v. Union of India & Ors. , wherein the principle enunciated
in Rahul Mehra (supra) was reiterated that the Sports Code must be made
applicable to every constituent of every National Sports Federation. Only its
players will have an opportunity to participate in district, state and national
level events and avail of the facilities that are made available by the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 13 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

Government and even have an opportunity to represent India in international
level events.
23. Accordingly, the provisions of the Sports Code are applicable to every
constituent of every National Sports Federation, including the State
Federations such as the Appellant. It is thus clear that the decisions of this
Court in Rahul Mehra (supra), as reiterated in K.P. Rao (supra), are
clarificatory in nature as it only clarifies the existing law. Consequently, no
issue of retrospective application of the said decisions arises in the facts of
the present case since the Sports Code was always applicable to the
Appellant and the said decisions have only clarified the position without
laying down that the Sports Code would be applicable from the date of the
said judgements.
24. The Impugned Judgment further records that, admittedly, six office
bearers elected pursuant to the elections in the Appellant association,
including its Chairman, President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary and
Member Executive, are Government employees who had held elected posts
in sports bodies for more than one term and for a period exceeding five
years. They were, therefore, ineligible to contest the impugned elections in
view of the letter dated 30.12.2020 issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs
and Sports, Government of India.
25. The Impugned Judgment also notes that the election to the post of
Chairman is contrary to the Sports Code, which does not contemplate such
an office. It has further been noticed that this Court, on prior occasions,
including in Mahipal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India , 2018 SCC OnLine
Del 10284, has deprecated the induction of persons into the executive bodies
of Sports Federations under such innovative nomenclature.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 14 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

26. In view of the above, the Impugned Judgment rightly observes that
the election of the Appellant’s Chairman, President, Secretary, Treasurer,
Vice-President and Members of its Executive Committee could potentially
be in contravention of the Sports Code. However, the learned Returning
Officer was precluded from examining the eligibility of the contesting
candidates on the touchstone of the Sports Code, having proceeded on the
basis of a non-existent order of the High Court of Orissa, which was cited
before him and ultimately relied upon, as recorded in his order dated
03.10.2021.
27. The Appellant has further contended that, although the learned
Returning Officer declared the election results on 27.10.2021, Respondent
No. 1, despite being fully aware thereof, did not institute any proceedings
challenging either the elections or the orders passed by the learned
Returning Officer and is, therefore, barred from assailing the same in
subsequent proceedings. This submission of the Appellant cannot be
accepted for the following reasons:
28. Firstly , Respondent No. 1’s consent to the holding of elections for the
Appellant’s Executive Committee, as recorded during the proceedings in
W.P.(C) 863/2021, cannot be construed as signifying any willingness by
Respondent No. 1 for grant of affiliation or recognition to the elected
Executive Committee, if the elections were not conducted in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law.
29. Secondly , the said contention raised by the Appellant is erroneous on
the face of the record. Upon discovery of the learned Returning Officer’s
reliance on a non-existent order of the High Court of Orissa to conclude that
the elections were required to be conducted under the Model Election
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 15 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

Guidelines instead of the Sports Code, Respondent No. 1 filed an application
being CM APPL. 36514/2021 in W.P.(C) 863/2021, wherein it was averred
as under:
“ vi. The most blatant disregard of the Ld. Returning Officer towards
verification of facts put forth before the Ld. Returning Officer has
manifested itself in the latest order dated 03.10.2021, passed by the
Learned Returning Officer in the matter of elections of UPKKA. In
the said order, the Ld. Returning Officer has quoted from an order
purportedly passed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in WP 18609
of 2019, which has been stated to have been ‘brought’ to the
attention of the Ld. Returning Officer, to state that a National Sports
Federation has no ‘right’ to ‘interfere’ with the elections of a State
Association. It is pertinent to mention here that the fact as to who
brought the said order to the notice of the Ld. Returning Officer has
not been specified. The purported order dated 18.09.2021, passed by
the Hon’ble Orissa High Court, has also neither been annexed
along with the order dated 03.10.2021, passed by the Ld. Returning
Officer nor a copy of the same has been supplied to anyone. Having
doubts on the perusal of the quoted portion of the purported order of
the Hon’ble Orrissa High Court in the order dated 03.10.2021,
passed by the Ld. Returning Officer, the applicant tried to find out
the purported order on the website of the Hon’ble Orissa High
Court but could not find the same. Vide a document-dated
03.10.2021, titled ‘Proceeding’, the Ld. Returning Officer, noted
that the State Sports Council had been abolished and appointed the
Joint Director of Sports, UP, as the Assistant Returning Officer. It is
submitted that in view of the fact that at the request of the Petitioner
in the captioned Writ Petition, this Hon’ble Court directed the
returning officer to call for a list of members inter-alia, from State
Sports Council. Since admittedly the said body is not in existence, no
list given by any other body in the place of State Sports Council can
be considered by the Ld. Returning Officer as per the order-dated
09.08.2021. Further, the appointment of the Assistant Returning
Officer is also not valid as per the order-dated 09.08.2021, passed
by this Hon’ble Court. After going through the order and
proceeding dated 03.10.2021, the applicant made enquiries in
regard to the said Writ Petition from the Indian Olympic
Association, which is the parent body of the KKFI and a party to the
said writ petition. To its absolute shock, discovered that no such
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 16 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

order had ever been passed. It is submitted that it is a very serious
matter when the Returning Officer has not only quoted copiously
from a non existent order, purportedly passed by a High Court but
also, on the basis of that non existent order, making serious
observations which are neither in consonance with the law laid
down by the Courts in this regard, nor the National Sports Code or
the Constitution of KKFI. In such circumstances, the elections
conducted by the Ld. Returning Officer are bound to be in violation
of the National Sports Code and the Constitution of KKFI which is
essential for recognition of any member association by KKFI. This
is also in violation of the order dated 09.08.2021, passed by this
Hon’ble Court in the captioned matter which specifically directed
the Returning Officer to consider objections in regard to the
finalization of the electoral roll inter-alia from KKFI and to have an
observer from KKFI to observe the electoral process. ”
30. The said application of Respondent No. 1 was disposed of vide order
dated 12.10.2021 passed by this Court, with liberty to Respondent No. 1 to
raise its objections at the relevant stage in appropriate proceedings.
Therefore, the Appellant’s afore-noted contention is unfounded and contrary
to the record.
31. The Appellant has also contended that it was unlawfully disaffiliated
by Respondent No. 1 based on a fraudulent communication dated
19.12.2019 allegedly issued by Mr. Sanjay Pratap Singh, the then President
of the Appellant association, in collusion with Respondent No. 1. The
Appellant has further alleged mala fides on the part of Respondent No. 1 by
asserting that it constituted a parallel body under the name ‘UP Amateur
Kho Kho Association’, whose membership substantially overlapped with
that of the Interim Committee appointed by Respondent No. 1. The
Appellant has also assailed the conclusions recorded by the AERC in its
report submitted to Respondent No. 1.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 17 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56

32. The aforesaid issues would necessitate an elaborate evidentiary
enquiry, which cannot appropriately be undertaken in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The Appellant is, therefore, granted liberty to avail such
appropriate remedies as may be available to it in accordance with law.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the
Impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition
warranting interference in the present Appeal. The Appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed. The pending Applications shall also stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
JUNE 4, 2026
St/ap
Signature Not Verified
LPA 305/2026 Page 18 of 18
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
13:34:56