V. DURGA PRASAD Vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the impugned order dtd. 3/11/2021 passed by the Ethics Officer/Ombudsman of the Andhra Cricket Association (in short 'ACA') whereby relinquished the petitioner from the office of Secretary of ACA as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of ACA and violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The 2nd respondent Ethics Officer/Ombudsman of the 1st respondent is a quasi judicial authority which has come into existence by virtue of Justice Lodha Committee reforms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others,(2015) 3 SCC 251 appointed a seven Member Committee headed by Justice R.M.Lodha, former Chief Justice of India to examine and make suitable recommendations on several aspects such as making of amendments to Memorandum of Association of Board of Control for Cricket in India, Rules and Regulations and to prevent frauds, conflict of interests and streamline its work. On 18/12/2015 the Committee recommended appointment of Ombudsman and Ethics Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of the Committee and directions were given to Board of Control for Cricket in India (in short 'BCCI') to implement the recommendations. Accordingly, amendments were made to the Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws of the 1st respondent and the rules and regulations and Bye-laws were registered. Chapter 8 Rule 43 deals with the appointment of Ethics Officer and his term of the office. Rule 41 deals with transparency. Rule 42 deals with conflict of interest. Rule 43 reads under:

(3.) When the elections for Krishna District Cricket Association (in short 'KDCA') are due in August, 2020, the full Member of the ACA, the Vice President of KDCS Sri B. Prabhu Prasad made a complaint on 19/6/2020 to the ACA as to conducting of elections as per the amended Bye-laws, rules and regulations of the ACA and recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee reforms. The ACA being full Member of the BCCI and KDCA being the member of the ACA, the same was referred by the Secretary of KDCA to the ACA who in turn referred to the Apex Council of ACA. The Apex Council decided to refer the complaint to Ombudsman for its clarification and decision. The Chief Executive Officer of ACA referred the complaint to Ombudsman and the same was read as Case No.5 of 2020. The 2nd respondent Ombudsman on 19/7/2020 on being taken cognizance of the complaint felt that Justice Lodha Committee reforms have to be implemented in the district level also. Rule 43, 44 and 45 of the 1st respondent Bye-laws empowers the 2nd respondent Ombudsman to take cognizance in disputes between or among the ACA, its members, ACA franchise, zones and the cricket players. Notices were issued to the respondent and also passed an interim order dtd. 19/7/2020 directing the respondents not to conduct elections to the KDCA until further orders. The KDCA and ACA filed its counter affidavits. The KDCA conducted meeting on 12/9/2020 with regard to the implementation of the orders dtd. 19/7/2020 passed by the Ombudsman vide its letter dtd. 14/9/2020 to the Ombudsman that it was resolved to implement Justice Lodha Committee reforms, subject to the instructions of the 1st respondent/ACA. The 3rd respondent also participated in the meeting. On 7/8/2020, the petitioner filed counter in the capacity of 1st respondent/ACA raised about locus standi of the 3rd respondent stating that there was no dispute between the 1st respondent and in all its full members and as such, the 2nd respondent Ombudsman has no jurisdiction and the Standing Counsel of ACA also filed counter accepting to adopt Justice Lodha Committee reforms. The 2nd respondent Ombudsman passed order dtd. 10/11/2020 dealing with various aspects and has chosen to consider the counter filed by the Standing Counsel (Note: Page 2 of the 1st respondent counter) as that of the writ petition in the capacity of Secretary and observed that the counter filed in the writ petition is against the interest of 1st respondent/ACA. Pending adjudication of the preliminary issue raised by the writ petitioner with regard to jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent directing the KDCA to implement Justice Lodha Committee reforms and on 18/11/2020, the Secretary of KDCA submitted letter to the 1st respondent stating that on 11/11/2020 the Annual General Body Meeting was conducted and it was decided to implement Justice Lodha Committee reforms with immediate effect and also to elect new office bearers and the said letter was circulated to all the Apex Council Members on 26/11/2020 and on the same day after obtaining clarification, the writ petitioner informed KDCA to conduct elections in accordance with Rule 6 and Rule 3 (b) of the 1st respondent ACA Bye- laws and accordingly, one T. Satyanandam was appointed as Election Officer and he has conducted elections and KDCA elected its new body unanimously on 3/12/2020. On 5/12/2020, the 2nd respondent passed orders declaring the elections of KDCA as null and void. As latest order dtd. 10/11/2020 was not followed, the writ petitioner in the capacity of the Secretary of ACA participated in the KDCA meetings got passed resolution to conduct elections to KDCA. The 3rd respondent on 7/4/2021 complained that the writ petitioner provided active assistance to KDCA to conduct illegal elections. The CEO of ACA submitted a report to the Apex Council that another complaint was made by the 3rd respondent which was received by the 2nd respondent on 14/7/2021 which was directed to be checked up to 19/7/2021 and the 2nd respondent passed order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 and posted the matter on 19/8/2021 ordering notices to the witnesses and to come along with the documents pertaining to the elections. The writ petitioner was made a party to the proceedings. When the writ petitioner filed counter and applications making allegations against the Ombudsman and when the same was not deleted as directed by the Ombudsman, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice on 8/9/2021 for contempt of authority and called for explanation from the writ petitioner for which on 15/9/2021 the writ petitioner submitted explanation tendering apology. On 17.09.20221, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice of contempt of authority of Ombudsman for which on 25/9/2021 the writ petitioner submitted explanation tendering apology. On 11/10/2021, the Ombudsman exercising power under Rule 45 of the ACA Rules stripped off the powers of the Secretary of ACA for his misbehaviour. He filed W.P.No.24276 of 2021 before this Court alleging that the Ombudsman has no power to exercise powers under Contempt of Court of Act. The interim order to suspend the Ombudsman order was refused by reasoned order against which W.A.No.736 of 2021 was filed. The impugned order was suspended for a limited term and thereafter the same was not extended. The matter came up for hearing on 13/12/2021. In the meanwhile, on 3/11/2021 the Ombudsman allowed I.A.No.1/2021 in Case No.5 of 2020 and imposed punishment of relinquishment of secretary position with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.