ARSHAD ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, said to be the State Champions in Badminton, having represented the State in National Championship and having played in International tournaments, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India essentially seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto and declaration that the post of the President of the respondent No.4, Badminton Association of India (BAI), is held by the respondent No.5 in violation of the guidelines dated 01.05.2010 issued by the respondent No.1, which carry the force of law.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent No.4, BAI, is under financial support from the Government of India and is, therefore, bound by the guidelines. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.5, who had been holding the post of President of BAI for more than 12 years, could not have been elected again to this post in the elections held on 13.06.2010; and his holding of the post is prohibited by virtue of the said guidelines. On 23.07.2010, after having primarily considered the submissions sought to be made in this matter and after noticing representation on behalf of respondents Nos.2,4 and 5 in caveat, we ordered issuance of notice to the respondents Nos.1 and 3, returnable on 28.07.2010. Appearance having now been put on behalf of all the respondents, service is complete. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Jodhpur Badminton

(3.) Association, an application (IA No.10214/2010) has been moved for its deletion from the array of parties with the submissions that no cause of action has been disclosed against itself in the writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 essentially endorsing the averments taken in the writ petition regarding the status of BAI and the binding nature of guidelines. On behalf of the respondent No.4 BAI, a reply-cum-affidavit has been filed by Dr.Vijai Sinha in his capacity as the General Secretary of the Association but apparently without joining much issue on the major and core questions raised by the petitioners and at the same time indicating that he has not received the records of the Association from the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 has, however, filed a counter-affidavit