M.SUNDARESAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P. (C) No.42227/2018 are the appellants, challenging judgment of the Single Judge, dated 14-01-2019. The respondents 1 to 3 are the respondents in the writ petition. The 4th respondent is a person who got impleaded in the above appeal, subsequently.

(2.) Challenge in the writ petition is against the Kerala Sports (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amending Act, for short), especially against Section 35 thereof, mainly contending that it is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and repugnant to Section 9 (5) and (6) of the Kerala Sports Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Parent Act' for short) . Repelling the contentions of the petitioners, who are presidents of the District Sports Councils of Kollam, Kottayam, Malappuram and Kasaragod districts, that they are entitled to continue for a period of 5 years from the date of nomination by virtue of Ext.P1 Notification, the learned judge found that, the intention of the legislature through the amendment was to conduct the elections to the District Sports Councils as soon as possible, after the Amending Act is brought into force. It was also found that, the post of the Presidents and Vice Presidents of District Sports Council are also to be filled up by elections from among the members of the Sports Council. Hence, once such elections are conducted, those who are continuing on the basis of nominations, in accordance with the unamended provisions of the Parent Act, will have to vacate their office. In other words, it was held that, the term of the nomination has to be read in consonance with provisions of the Act, as amended. It is further held that, Section 35 of the Amending Act, though apparently not happily worded, would indicate that a re-constitution of the councils was the intention of the legislature. Therefore it was held that, a conjunctive reading of the provisions of the Amending Act would indicate that the intention is to carry out a reconstitution of the councils, without waiting for the present council to run out. Hence the amendment proposing conduct of elections, instead of continuation of the nominated councils, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, is the finding. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed

(3.) The above said findings are assailed mainly emphasising that, Section 35 of the Amending Act will become void in view of the doctrine of repugnancy, since it is repugnant to Section 9 (5) and (6) of the Parent Act. Further contention is that, Section 35 of the Amending Act does not contemplate a reconstitution through elections, at any time before expiry of the period of nomination, which is prescribed under Section 9 (5) of the Parent Act. It is also contended that there is no legislative competence to introduce a 'special provision' like that of Section 35 in the Amending Act.