HARYANA CRICKET ASSOCIATION Vs. GUNROCCK CRICKET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hyderabad Cricket Association represented by its Honourary Secretary, the Executive Committee represented by its President-cum-Chairman, Hyderabad Cricket Association, had preferred Civil Revision Petition Nos.2198 of 2002 and 2199 of 2002 against the common order dated 1-5-2002 made in O.P. Nos.549 of 1998 and 550 of 1998 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent in C.R.P. No.2198 of 2002 is the Gunrock Cricket Club and the respondent in C.R.P. No.2199 of 2002 is the Picket Cricket Club. At the outset, it is brought to my notice that these two clubs, Gunrock Cricket Club and Picket Cricket Club, arrayed as respondents in these civil revision petitions, are un-registered clubs. O.P. Nos.549 of 1998 and 550 of 1998 were filed by Gunrock Cricket Club and Picket Cricket Club respectively, as against the respondents, the revision petitioners herein, under Section 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli filed the O.Ps. praying for a declaration that the acts and actions of the respondents in the said Original Petitions and allowing the unauthorized persons to appear on their behalf as illegal, mala fide and arbitrary and also for perpetual injunction restraining them from receiving annual subscription fee from unauthorized persons. One Sri M.A. Muneem Siddiqui represented these clubs and this itself is a disputed fact. The main grievance ventilated by the respondents in these civil revision petitions as petitioners in the aforesaid O.Ps. is that the present revision petitioners are not following Rule 3(i) and (ii) of Chapter III of Memorandum and Rules and Regulations and they are not allowing the authorized representatives of these clubs in the general body meeting and they are changing the nomination as they like. No doubt, certain other allegations had been made in this regard. The stand taken by the revision petitioners as respondents in the said O.Ps. is one of total denial and the very locus standi of this M.A.Muneem Siddiqui was raised as a ground of attack. After settlement of issues, P.Ws.l to 3 and R.W.I were examined. Exs.A-1 to 23 and Exs.C-1 to C-53 were marked. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad had arrived at a conclusion that the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the respective O.Ps cannot be granted and having disallowed the said relief, allowed the O.Ps partly directing the revision petitioners- respondents in the O.Ps to follow Rule 3(i) and (ii) of Chapter III of the Memorandum and certain other consequential directions. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners had filed the present civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Sri K. Suryanarayana, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners at the outset had submitted that Gunrock Cricket Club and Picket Cricket Club are un-registered clubs and hence they cannot maintain these O.Ps at all under Section 11 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1 of 1350 Fasli" for the purpose of convenience). The Counsel placed strong reliance on Hyderabad Cricket Association v. Cambridge Cricket Club, 2002 (5) ALD 818 = 2002 (6) ALT 268. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) and the said provision is substantially same when compared to Section 11 of the Act 1 of 1350 Fasli though it is not in para materia. The learned Counsel further contended that the learned Judge having arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners in the respective O.Ps, respondents in the present civil revision petitions, are not entitled to the relief prayed for, had definitely committed an error in further proceeding with the matter and issuing directions as specified in Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned order. The learned Counsel also submitted that in this view of the matter both on the question of law raised and also on facts the impugned order cannot be sustained.

(3.) On the contrary, the Counsel representing the respondents in the respective civil revision petitions had submitted that taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, only a direction was given to follow its own Rules and hence, the revision petitioners cannot make any grievance in relation to such directions on the ground that it is beyond the powers of the learned Judge.