Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.29577/2017)
Maharashtra Archery Association …..Appellant(s)
:Versus:
Rahul Mehra and Ors. ....Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.28788/2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) Diary No.29202/2017)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent No.1 has filed a public interest litigation
before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, being Writ
Signature Not Verified
Petition (Civil) No.195 of 2010, raising issues of transparency
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2019.05.01
17:32:20 IST
Reason:
in governance and functioning of the Archery Association of
2
India (for short the “AAI”). Several interim orders came to be
passed in the said writ petition which are not relevant for
answering the controversy in the present proceedings. The
present special leave petitions emanate from the order dated
th
10 August, 2017 passed by the High Court in C.M. No.10461
of 2017 filed by respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) inter alia for
appointment of Administrator/Returning Officer including to
conduct elections of AAI in compliance with the High Court’s
th
order dated 15 December, 2016, as well as stay of notice
nd
dated 2 March, 2017 of the AAI, calling for an emergency
th
meeting of the General Council on 15 March, 2017 and, in
the alternative, to stay the outcome of such meeting if held, till
the Court appoints an Administrator/Returning Officer. The
High Court after hearing the parties passed the following
order:
“20. In the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate
that the affairs of the Archery Association of India (AAI) be
brought under the supervision of an Administrator till its
Constitution is amended and elections are held in terms of
this Court’s order dated 15.12.2016. The Court also deems it
appropriate that for the present, the affairs and elections of
AAI be conducted by a person of public eminence with
significant experience in sports affairs and administration
3
and elections. We are of the opinion that Mr. S.Y. Quraishi,
Former Chief Election Commissioner of India, who has also
served as Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports, Government of India would be a suitable person to
be appointed as the AdministratorcumReturning Officer for
discharge of the following functions:
(i) To resolve the issue of disaffiliation of such
members/units of AAI as on 15.12.2016, within a month
from today by giving them two weeks’ notice and if their
membership can be regularized in terms of the ‘unamended’
Constitution, it shall be so regularized;
(ii) the Electoral College of the AAI shall be prepared and
elections shall be held in six weeks thereafter. This elected
body shall carry out the amendments to the Constitution to
bring it in conformity with the National Sports Code.
(iii) Thereafter, a fresh round of elections, shall be carried
out as per the amended Constitution and in terms of the
National Sports Code, to ensure that age and tenure
restrictions and due representation of the sports persons are
strictly complied with. The entire exercise shall be carried
out within a period of 4 months from today.
(iv) The AAI shall make available to the Administrator an
appropriate office space and facilities for the discharge of the
aforesaid directions and make available such staff and
personnel as the Administrator may express the need for.
Alternatively, the Administrator may appoint such personnel
to assist him in the aforesaid matter and expenses towards
the same shall be borne by the AAI.
(v) Till the elections are conducted and results declared in
consonance of the National Sports Code and in compliance
with the preceding directions, the AAI shall not make any
new financial commitments except with the prior approval of
the Administrator. Routine expenses of AAI too shall be
defrayed, with the due prior approval of the Administrator.
21. The applicant and the AAI shall seek consent of Mr.
S.Y. Quraishi, of his acceptance of the aforementioned
responsibility.
22. The Court would consider fixing an honorarium for the
Administrator’s assignment at a later date.
23. The application is disposed off in the above terms.”
4
3. This decision is assailed by way of an appeal [arising out
of SLP(C) Diary No.29577/2017] filed by Maharashtra Archery
Association (for short “MAA”), appeal [arising out of SLP(C)
Diary No.28788/2017] filed by the Archery Association of
India (for short “AAI”), and the appeal [arising out of SLP(C)
Diary No.29202/2017] filed by Kerala State Archery
Association (for short “KSAA”). When these special leave
th
petitions came up for hearing on 18 September, 2017, the
Court recorded the submission of the appellant(s) that the
constitution of AAI stood amended in accordance with the
National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (for short
“the Sports Code”). The counsel appearing for Union of India
prayed for time to verify the said position. Later, this Court
directed the Ministry of Sports to file an affidavit regarding
th
compliance, on or before 26 October, 2017. Eventually, the
affidavit of the competent officer of the Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports, Government of India, came to be filed. It is
not necessary for us to dilate on the contents of the said
th
affidavit. For, the matters were heard on 4 December, 2017
5
whence, after hearing the parties, the Court proceeded to pass
the following order:
“Heard Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr.
Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Narasimha,
learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India
and Mr. Rahul Mehra, respondent appearing in person. It is
submitted by Mr. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor
General that though certain amendments have been carried
out in the constitution, yet they are not in consonance with
the National Sports Development Code, 2011 (NSDCI) of the
MYAS. In the affidavit filed by the Union of India, certain
deviations have been pointed out. They read as follows :
‘i. The NSDCI provides that the election of office bearer
of an NSF shall be conducted in accordance with the
Model Election Byelaws of the NSDCI, copy whereof is
annexed herewith and marked ANNEXURE R/3 [PAGE
12 TO 51]. As per the provisions of the said election bye
laws, the Office Bearer and Members of the Managing
Committee shall be elected by secret ballot. However,
the Constitution of the AAI provides that election of
office bearers of the AAI shall be held as per the rules
and regulations which may be adopted by the General
Council, and there is no mention in the Constitution of
the AAI that such election shall be held by secret ballot.
ii. As per the principles underlying the NSDCI, an
affiliated member of a National Sports Federation (NSF),
i.e., a full member of the NSF, should be represented by
two delegates in the General Council (by whatever name
called). The Constitution of AAI shows each State
Association has been given representation of three
delegates in the General Council i.e. one representative
over and above the minimum of two representatives.
iii. The NSDCI provides that an NSF shall give affiliation
as a full member to a State Association if such State
Association has at least 50% of the district units
functioning in that State as per Para 3.10 and Para 3.19
of AnnexureII of the Code. But no such stipulation is
found in the eligibility conditions for affiliation of State
Associations as members of the AAI.
6
iv. The Constitution of AAI also makes a provision that
up to three persons may be bestowed the title of
Honorary Life President of AAI, without voting rights, in
recognition of the services rendered by past Presidents
of AAI. The NSDCI is silent on the matter.’
Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Salwan, learned
counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that the amendment
shall be carried out keeping in view the said deviations
within a week hence.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that
amendment shall be incorporated by treating it as an
order of the Court. After the constitution comes into
force, election shall be held under the supervision of Mr.
S.Y. Quraishi who has been appointed as the
Administrator by the High Court, within four weeks
therefrom. Mr. Quraishi is requested to see that the
election takes place in accordance with the amended
constitution which stands amended by incorporation by
virtue of order passed by this Court, as agreed to by
learned counsel for the parties.
The amended constitution shall be filed before this
Court and a copy whereof be supplied to Mr. Narasimha,
learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr Rahul
Mehra, respondentinperson. But the filing of the
amended constitution will not postpone the election, as
directed hereinabove. To elaborate, amendment shall be
incorporated stating the same as an order of the Court
within a week hence and thereafter Mr. Quraishi shall
proceed to hold the election in accordance with the
constitution which will come into existence by virtue of
the order passed today.
Mr. Quraishi shall be at liberty to see that the
constitution of the Association is strictly in accordance
with the Code and thereafter proceed with the election.
If he has any reservation, he is at liberty to move this
Court.
List after eight weeks.”
(emphasis supplied)
7
4. As a matter of fact, the contentious issues regarding the
relevant amendment carried out to the Constitution of AAI
stood resolved in terms of this order. Further, this Court
issued certain peremptory directions to the Administrator to
ensure compliance thereof within the timeline specified in the
order. The appeals could have been disposed of in terms of
the said order itself, but the same were kept pending with a
sanguine hope that the directions given therein would be
complied with within the timeframe specified in the order and
that the compliance report would be submitted by the
Administrator in that regard. The appellant (AAI) filed an
th
application before this Court on 11 December, 2017, being
I.A. No.135882 of 2017 and placed on record the final
amended Constitution in terms of the order of this Court dated
th
4 December, 2017. The appellant (AAI) then filed a separate
th
I.A. No.132436 of 2018 on 13 September, 2018, seeking
directions to hold elections as per the Court approved
Constitution.
8
5. The Administrator, Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, appointed by the
High Court finally filed a compliance report in the Registry of
th
this Court on 24 September, 2018, being document
No.139081/2018 in appeal arising from SLP(C) Diary
No.29577/2017, together with the new Constitution (for short
“Administrator’s Constitution”). Be it noted that, admittedly,
the Constitution filed by the Administrator contained several
other amendments than the permitted or approved
th
amendments in terms of the order of this Court dated 4
December, 2017. It is also not in dispute that no formal
application has been moved by the Administrator (appointed
by the High Court) before this Court seeking liberty to amend
the Constitution beyond the amendments referred to in the
th
order of this Court dated 4 December, 2017. Further, no
direction was sought from this Court to permit the
Administrator to conduct elections on the basis of the
amendments incorporated by him in the new Constitution.
The grievance of the appellants is that this amended
9
Administrator’s Constitution was not even circulated to the
constituent members until it came to be filed in this Court.
6. Thus, the grievance of the appellant(s) is that the
Administrator had carried out amendments beyond what was
permitted and approved by this Court in terms of the order
th
dated 4 December, 2017, that too without any discussion
with the members and stakeholders. That Constitution
th
however, came to be notified for the first time on 4 October,
2018, through email to the members State Association(s)
along with a notice for election for the office bearers of AAI to
nd
be conducted by the Administrator on 22 December 2018, at
11.00 A.M.
7. The appellant (AAI) immediately rushed to this Court by
way of I.A. No.15611 of 2018, seeking directions to the
Administrator to conduct elections in conformity with the
Court approved Constitution and seeking further directions to
the Union of India to restore recognition of the AAI which was
th
derecognised on 17 December, 2012. That application was
th
moved for passing suitable directions by this Court on 19
10
November, 2018, when the Court, after hearing the parties,
passed the following order:
“Since the election programme has already commenced in
th
terms of notice dated 4 October, 2018, the same should
proceed as per law uninterrupted.
We clarify that the result of the election will be subject
to the outcome of this application .
The grievance made in this application inter alia about
improper amendments to the Constitution can be considered
at a later stage.
List this application in the second week of February, 2019.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Resultantly, the election process was concluded in
accordance with the Administrator’s Constitution and not as
per the amended Constitution in terms of the order of this
th
Court dated 4 December, 2017. As a result, the
representatives of the appellant Association(s) could not
contest the election due to the restrictions prescribed in the
Administrator’s Constitution.
The Union of India has also filed a separate application
9.
th
being I.A. No.15103/2019 on 24 January, 2019, raising
objections to the Administrator’s Constitution being in
violation of the Sports Code. Even the Indian Olympic
Association (for short “IOA”) has filed document
11
th
No.24274/2018 on 8 February, 2019, objecting to the
Administrator’s Constitution being in violation of the Sports
Code and the Constitution of the World Archery. Another
application has been filed by Kerala State Archery Association
th
(“KSAA”), being I.A. No.30011/2019 on 18 February, 2019,
for directions to declare that the elections conducted by the
Administrator on the basis of the Administrator’s Constitution,
is null and void and to appoint a new Returning Officer to hold
fresh elections in consonance with the Court approved
th
Constitution, in terms of the order dated 4 December, 2017.
st
The appellant (MAA) has also filed an application on 1 March,
2019, being I.A. No.3792/2019 seeking a direction to declare
the Administrator’s Constitution as void ab initio and to
appoint a Returning Officer/Observer to conduct fresh election
for AAI in terms of the Court approved Constitution as per
th
order dated 4 December, 2017. The Union of India, as per
th
the liberty given by this Court, has filed an affidavit on 5
March, 2019 highlighting the deviations in the Administrator’s
Constitution and the Sports Code.
12
10. During the course of hearing of these matters, before
closing the matter for judgment, the Court called upon the
Administrator, appointed by the High Court, to submit a flow
th
chart pointing out the steps taken by him from 4 December,
nd
2017 till 22 December, 2018, until the election of the new
body. The Administrator has accordingly filed a compilation
giving details about the follow up steps taken by him in that
regard.
We have heard Mr. K.M. Natarajan, learned Additional
11.
Solicitor General appearing for Union of India, Mr. Shyam
Divan, Mr. Sunil Gupta, Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Shekhar
Naphade, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and Mr. Rahul Mehra,
respondent No.1 appearinginperson.
12. The core issue to be answered in these proceedings is
th
about the purport of the order passed by this Court on 4
December, 2017. The background in which the said order
came to be passed after hearing the parties, leaves no manner
of doubt that it had modified the impugned order of the High
13
th
Court dated 10 August, 2017. Further, the contentious
issues regarding the proposed amendment in the Constitution
stood answered to that extent. In that, this Court passed a
peremptory order not only for approving the proposed
th
amendments, as noted in the order dated 4 December, 2017,
but also directed the Administrator to conduct elections in
consonance thereto within a period of four weeks, after
incorporating the amendments within one week from the date
of the order. That was the limited mandate given to the
Administrator. Indeed, this Court had given liberty to the
Administrator to seek clarification or directions if and when
necessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch of imagination
could be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carry
out amendments in the Constitution beyond the four
th
amendments referred to in the order dated 4 December,
2017, much less to do so unilaterally without any prior notice
to all the stakeholders and due deliberations with them as
mandated by the Constitution of the AAI. In any case, any
further amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated
14
only after taking prior permission of this Court which was still
in seisen of the matter. The Administrator was also illadvised
not to seek extension of time for completion of election
process, which was to be completed not later than five weeks
th
from 4 December, 2017.
13. The stand taken by the Administrator is that the order
th
dated 4 December, 2017 gave him liberty to ensure that the
Constitution of the Association is strictly in accordance with
the Sports Code and only thereafter to proceed with the
election. Indeed, liberty was given to the Administrator in the
th
last paragraph of the order dated 4 December, 2017.
However, the order if read as a whole and keeping in mind the
spirit of the order, it had directed the Administrator to ensure
timely completion of election within five weeks from the date of
the order on the basis of four amendments approved by the
Court, which were required to be incorporated by the
Administrator within one week from the date of the order. No
more and no less. For any other doubt or deviation, the
Administrator was obliged to seek clarification and appropriate
15
directions from this Court, before the expiry of the timeline
th
given in the order dated 4 December, 2017. The
Administrator, however, merely filed a compliance report on
th
24 September, 2018, in the Registry of this Court without
attempting even once to invite the attention of this Court
thereto. The Administrator has also filed a further report in
th
terms of the order dated 28 March, 2019. On perusal of the
said reports, we may hasten to accept the plea that the steps
taken by the Administrator were under a mistaken belief that
he had the authority to proceed in the manner that he did and
including to amend the Constitution beyond the four
th
amendments referred to in the order dated 4 December,
2017. It is not a case of defiance or disobedience of the
Court’s order as such.
14. The appellant(s) would contend that even if it is not a
case of intentional disobedience of the order of this Court by
the Administrator, however, since steps taken by him are not
in conformity with the spirit of the directions given by the
Court, the same be declared as null and void and non est .
16
For, his actions had caused serious prejudice owing to the
unilateral, unauthorised action taken by him, including of
having deprived the members of the appellant Association(s)
from representing and participating in the election process of
the apex body, which they were otherwise entitled to under the
Constitution, as approved by this Court in terms of the order
th
dated 4 December, 2017. All this having been done by the
Court appointed Administrator, in the guise of an order of this
Court, the Court must step in and nullify all the actions taken
by the Administrator which are beyond the scope of the order
th
dated 4 December, 2017. To buttress this submission,
reliance has been placed on Delhi Development Authority
1
Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. , Anita
International Vs. Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor
2
Sangh and Ors. , and Bihari Lal Vs. Shankar Das and
3
Ors.
1
(1996) 4 SCC 622 (paragraph 19)
2
(2016) 9 SCC 44 (paragraphs 54, 55)
3
AIR 1925 Lahore 309
17
15. We are in agreement with the stand taken by the
appellant(s) that the Administrator could have taken only such
th
steps as were permitted by this Court vide order dated 4
December, 2017, in their letter and spirit. Indisputably, the
additional amendments incorporated by the Administrator
have resulted in denial of right to represent in and contest
elections of the AAI for the existing members. Notably, even
the direction given by the High Court whilst appointing the
Administrator vide the impugned judgment, in no way gave
authority to the Administrator to amend the Constitution, but
was limited to conduct elections on the basis of the
Constitution as it stood then. As ordered by the High Court, it
was for the newly elected body to take steps in the right
earnest to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with the
National Sports Code on specified matters and then to conduct
fresh elections on the basis of such amended Constitution. In
other words, the Constitution could be amended only in
accordance with law, which means by the elected body after
interacting with all the stakeholders and members. The
18
Administrator had no power to amend the Constitution, much
less unilaterally, except for the four amendments approved by
this Court, for which no further formality was required to be
undertaken. The Administrator was obliged to conduct
elections on the basis of such amended Constitution in terms
th
of the order of this Court dated 4 December, 2017. No more
and no less.
16. Appellants have rightly invited our attention to the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Smt.
4
Damyanti Naranga Vs. The Union of India and Ors. ,
which had approved the exposition in
G.K. Ghose and Anr.
5
Vs. E.X. Joseph . In that case, this Court had held that the
right to form an Association was conditioned by the existence
of the recognition of the said Association by the Government.
In that case the Court had held:
“It is not disputed that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed
by Article 19 can be claimed by Government servants. Article
33 which confers power on the Parliament to modify the
rights in their application, to the Armed Forces, clearly
brings out the fact that all citizens, including Government
servants, are entitled to claim the rights guaranteed by
Article 19. Thus, the validity of the impugned rule has to be
4
(1971) 1 SCC 678
5
(1963) Supp. 3 SCR 789
19
judged on the basis that the respondent and his co
employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions. It is
clear that Rule 4B imposes a restriction on this right. It
virtually compels a Government servant to withdraw his
membership of the Service Association of Government
servants as soon as recognition accorded to the said
Association is withdraw or if, after the Association is formed,
no recognition is accorded to it within six months. In other
words, the right to form an Association is conditioned by the
existence of the recognition of the said Association by the
Government. If the Association obtains the recognition and
continues to enjoy it, Government servants can become
members of the said Association; if the Association does not
secure recognition from the Government or recognition
granted to it is withdrawn, Government servants must cease
to be the members of the said Association. That is the plain
effect of the impugned rule.”
17. This dictum was quoted with approval by the
Constitution Bench to conclude that the right to form an
Association included the right to its continuance and any law
altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will
be a breach of the right to form the Association. Thus
understood, the steps taken by the Administrator beyond the
scope of the authority bestowed upon him in terms of the
th
order of this Court dated 4 December, 2017, cannot be
validated by the Court but must be treated as non est in law. It
would have been a different matter if the Administrator had
presented the additional amendments before this Court and
20
invited this Court to approve the same after hearing the
concerned parties.
18. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the
amendments incorporated by the Administrator are justified
and proper or, so to speak, essential as per the exposition of
this Court in Board of Control for Cricket Vs. Cricket
6
, need not detain us. For, the
Association of Bihar and Ors.
further amendments to the Constitution could be effected only
in the manner provided by the Constitution of the AAI
th
including in terms of the order dated 4 December, 2017. It is
thus not necessary for us to examine as to whether, in fact,
there is any deviation or not from the dispensation predicated
in the National Sports Code, as contended by the respondents
and the counsel appearing for the Administrator.
19. For the time being, without any hesitation, we are of the
considered opinion that all steps taken by the Administrator,
including the elections conducted by him on the basis of the
Constitution (as amended by him), will have to be treated as
null and void and non est in law. The parties will have to be
6
(2016) 8 SCC 535
21
th
relegated to the position as on 4 December, 2017, consequent
to incorporation of the four amendments approved in terms of
the same order. After carrying out those four amendments in
the Constitution, the election will have to be conducted to
constitute the new body, which would then take steps to
introduce further amendments to the Constitution, if so
required, to bring it in line with the National Sports Code, after
giving an opportunity to all concerned. Only after the
amendments are accepted and approved, fresh elections be
conducted for constituting a new body in conformity with such
duly amended Constitution.
20. In reference to certain apprehensions expressed by the
respondents due to reactions of the World Archery body, we
must observe that the controversy cannot be adjudicated on
the basis of perception of the World Archery body. Similarly,
we do not wish to expand the scope of the present proceedings
as the main writ petition is still pending before the High Court
of Delhi, where all issues can be deliberated and answered
appropriately. While doing so, the High Court, no doubt, would
22
be guided by the exposition in Sheela Barse Vs. Union of
7
,
India and Ors. K. Murugan Vs. Fencing Association of
8
India, Jabalpur and Ors. , and Board of Control for
9
Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors ,
on which reliance has been placed by the counsel representing
the newly elected body of AAI and the respondents, for issuing
appropriate directions in a public interest litigation. In other
words, the High Court will examine all aspects of the matter
on their own merits in accordance with law.
We make it clear that the High Court may also consider
21.
the stand taken by the appellant(s) and Union of India that the
decision of this Court in Board of Control for Cricket
10
(supra) will be of no avail to the present case, because the
National Sports Code takes within its fold fiftytwo disciplines
of sports and Cricket is not one of the scheduled sports. In
other words, the dispensation to be followed must be in
conformity with the National Sports Code in so far as AAI is
7
(1988) 4 SCC 226 (para 1)
8
(1991) 2 SCC 412 (para 12)
9
(2015) 3 SCC 251 (para 100103)
10
(2016) 8 SCC 535
23
concerned. We keep this issue open to be considered at the
appropriate stage.
22. In view of the above, we dispose of these appeals and all
the applications on the following basis:
(I) We declare that the Constitution of AAI is amended only
to the extent of four amendments referred to in the
th
order dated 4 December, 2017, treating it as amended
by an order of this Court, without requiring to comply
with any other formality. Rest of the amendments are
declared as null and void and non est in law. The same,
at best, may be pursued as a proposal to be considered
after the newly elected body initiates a procedure for
carrying out further amendments to the Constitution of
AAI as per law.
(II) We further declare that all steps taken by the
Administrator on the basis of the Administrator’s
nd
Constitution, including the elections conducted on 22
December, 2018, are null and void and non est in law.
(III) All concerned parties are relegated to the position as it
stood after the incorporation of the four amendments
24
th
referred to in the order dated 4 December, 2017.
Further, the High Courtappointed Administrator
stands relieved in terms of this order. The elected body,
in office, would continue to function hereafter as a
Committee of Administrators appointed in terms of this
order. We deem it appropriate to allow this Committee
to continue in office as nothing adverse has been
brought to our notice for their continuation until the
newly elected body takes over. However, the Committee
shall discharge only routine and daytoday activities
and shall not take any policy decision or create new
financial liability, until the newly elected body takes
over.
(IV) The election for constituting the new elected body be
completed by the aforementioned Committee appointed
by this Court within four weeks from today and the
election process must be conducted strictly in
accordance with the Constitution as amended in terms
th
of order dated 4 December, 2017.
25
(V) The newly elected body, after taking over the office,
shall move a proposal for further amendment of the
Constitution to bring it in line with the National Sports
Code and that process be taken to its logical end
expeditiously.
(VI) Any issue arising from such amendment may be raised
before the High Court where the main matter i.e. Writ
Petition (Civil) No.195/2010 is pending. That writ
petition be decided on its own merits and in accordance
with law.
(VII) The Committee shall submit a compliance report before
the High Court immediately after the newly elected body
takes over the office but not later than six weeks from
today. Issues concerning the said report may also be
considered by the High Court on their own merits in
accordance with law.
23. The appeals are allowed in the aforementioned terms. All
the applications are disposed of.
24. While parting, we place on record our word of
appreciation for the services rendered by the High Court
appointed Administrator Mr. S.Y. Quraishi. We also appreciate
26
the sincere effort of respondent No.1 for the cause of sports
and for introducing reforms in the functioning of the apex
body (AAI).
…………………………..….J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………..….J.
(Ajay Rastogi)
New Delhi;
May 01, 2019.