MAHMOOD CRICKET CLUB v. THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION

Order

Heard Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned counsel for Petitioner, Sri V. Rajender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, and perused the record.

#2. It is the case of petitioner that it is a Society duly registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2OO1, bearing Registration No. 38 of 2018, having been registered on O1.O2.2O18, and is affiliated to Respondent No. 1 Association and engaged in promoting and developing the game of cricket in the State of Telangana. Respondent No. 1 is a Society bearing 2 Reglstration No. 207 of 1961, formed for the purpose of controiling and improving the quality and standards of cricket throughout Telangana. The objects of Respondent No. 1, as set oul in Clauses 2(b) and 2(u)(i) of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, 2018, include the provision of measures necessary for promotion and deveiopment of the game of cricket, and the grant or donation of such sums for such causes as would be deemed ht by the Hyderabad Cricket Association conducive to the promotion of the game of cricket.

2.1. It is the further case of petitioner that Respondent No. I Association is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it discharges paramount public functions and exercises pervasive control over the sport of cricket in the State . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control Jor Cricket in India o. Crlcket Assoclatlon of Blharl, held that a writ petition is maintainable against the Board of Control for Cricket in India, since it performs public

functions, ancl a Divrsion Bench of this Court in M, Gouind (2o1s) 3 scc 2s1 3 Reddg a. Hgderabad Crlcket Assoclatlon2, applied the same principle to Respondent No. 1 within the State of Telangana. According to petitioner, the General Body of

2.2. Respondent No. t had, over the years, passed several resolutions granting development funds to afhliated clubs. In the 766 Annual General Meeting held on 22.O8.2O1O, the General Body decided to grant Rs. 1 ,O0,O00/ - to all the Affiliated Clubs for purchase of cricket materials every year. In the 77h Annual General Meeting held on O7.08.2O 1 1, on persistent requests from the members, it was decided to grant Rs. 2,00,000/- each to all the Affrliated Clubs for development of the game and purchase of cricket materials for the yeat 2Oll-

#12. In the 81st Annual General Meeting held on 13.09.2015 at Item No.4 Clause (b), the General Body resolved that a consolidated amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - be paid for the year 2014-75 to all the Afhliated Clubs as Cricket Development Fund and further resolved that for the future, a development fund of Rs. 3,OO,0O0/- sha1l be paid to all the private clubs and cricket material to institutions, which arrangement was acknowledged and approved by the members. 1 (2ot7l 3 ALT 506 (DB) 4

2.3. It is the lurther case of petitioner that Respondent No. 1 paid the development fund of Rs. 3,O0,00O/- per annum to petitioner and to the other private affiliated clubs for the financial 1,ears 20i5 16 and 2016-17, but from the hnancial year 2Ol7-18 onu'ards, Respondent No. I has arbitrarily, iilegally and rvithout any valid reason, failed to pay the said development fund despite persistent demands. At the 86fr Annual General Body Meeting held on 18.O2.2024, Secretary of Petitioner Club requested release of Rs. 5,00,O00/ - to all the clubs for cricket devclopment, and the Chairperson assured that necessary cricket equipment and material would be provided, however, no payment ensued.

2.4. Petitioncr states that aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent No. 1, they filed Case No. 41 of 2O25 before the Hon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman (Additional Charge) of Respondent No. 1 Association who, by Order dated 07.05.2O25, recorded that Respondent had not disputed the Resolutions passed by the General Body in the Minutes of the 776 Annual General Meeting at Item No. 5, the 81st Annual General Meeting at Item No. 4 Clause (b), and the 86fr Annual General Body Meeting at para 8(6); no reasons were forthcoming for non- implementatron of the resolution of the 8 1"t Annual General 5 Body Meeting dated 13.09.2015, and private clubs were entitled to payment of the development fee of Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum from 2O17-18 onwards. The operative portion of the Order dated 07 .O5.2025 reads as follows: ^

#10. Haying met the General Body Resolution dated 13.09.2015 held regards facts and circumstances the respondent is directed to implement its 81 Annuat General Body Meeting at Item No.4 (b) and pay the development fee of Rs.3 lakhs per year to each of the private Club lrom 2017-18 onwards as expeditiously as possible within a period of 8 weeks"

2.5. It is the further case of petitioner that eight weeks prescribed in the Order dated 07.05.2025 expired on or about O2.O7.2O25; despite the lapse of nearly ten months thereafter, and despite repeated representations made by petitioner, including distribution of copies of the Order to all members at the Annual General Meeting of Respondent No. 1, Respondents have willfully failed to comply with the said Order. The total sum payable to petitioner as development fund for the frnancial years 2Ol7-18 to 2025-26, calculated at Rs. 3,O0,0OO/- per annum for nine hnancial years, comes to Rs. 27,OO,O0O/-. It is the further case of petitioner that while Respondents have stonewalled implementation of the Order of the Ombudsman, Respondent No. t has, or 04.02.2026 and O7.02.2O26, caused six Demand Drafts to be issued through Canara Bank, 6 Dilsukhnagar Branch, Hyoerabad, aggregating to Rs. 68,73, 1.9,584 I - (Rupees Sixty-Eight Crores Seventy-Three Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Four), in favour of M / s Visaka Industries Limited, deposited before the Principal Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad, pursuant to the Order dated 24.11.2025 passed in CEP No.22 of 2025. Petitioner states that the selective compliance of Respondent No. 1, in promptly disbursing a sum in excess of Rs. 68 crores in favour of a private commercial entity whrle simultaneously withholding the comparativbly modest development fund payable under a binding Order of its own Ombudsman, is manifestly arbitrarl , discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1 - HCA hled counter opposing the

#3. Writ Petition. The gist of the case set out in the Counter Affidavit is as follows: Payment of development funds to the clubs of Respondent No. 1 - Association is their internal policy decision and the same cannot be subjected to judicial interference under Article 226, there is no element of public function involved in the said internal policy decision, which is a private 7 administralive action, and the present Writ Petition is therefore, not maintainable. Retiance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Paralgmtrtic Conmlttee oJ Indla u. lVaresh Kum.ar Shanna3, for the proposition that internal policy decisions of sports associations are not amenable to interference under Article 226 unless there is manifest arbitrary or mala fide action. 3. 1. It is stated, Apex Council Meeting was held on

16.03.2026, in which the Apex Council unanimously resolved to grant Rs. 3,00,000/- towards development fees to all registered and recognised clubs of Respondent No. 1 - Association for the financial year 2026-27. With respect to the development funds for the years 20 17- 1 8 to 2024-25, the said issue would be placed before the General Body Meeting consisting of all recognised clubs of the Association to take appropriate action. The decision in regard to the past years primarily depends upon the funds available with the Hyderabad Cricket Association and the funds to be received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The qualification of availability of funds is supported by the decisions taken in the Annual General Meetings of Respondent No. l, including resolution at the 76e Annual t 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8443 I 8 General Meeting held on 22.O8.2O1O, which records that grant of Rs. 1,00,0OO/ - to a1l affiliated clubs was decided "subject to the availabitity of funds and depending upon the funds received from the Boarci of cricket Control of India".

3.2. There are more than 200 cricket clubs recognized by Respondent No. 1 - Association ald payment of development funds for the current year itself amounts to over Rs. 6 crores. Petitioner's calculation of Rs. 27,00,OO0/ - as the outstanding amount is dispuled, inasmuch as the said period also includes the period of limited cricket activity occasioned by Covid 19 pandemic. Payment of Rs. 68,73 ,19,584 I - to M/s Visaka Industries Limited rvas, admittedll', pursuant to the Order dated

24.11.2025 passed by the Principal Special Court in CEP No. 22 of 2025, has no bearing on the facts of [he present case, and has been raiscd wrth the sole intention of creating prejudice against Respondent No. 1.

3.3. Respondent No. 2 has not hled any separate counter traversing the case of Petitioner.

#4. Learned counsel for petitioner has advanced the lollou'ing submissions : Respondent No. 1 Association, being a society (i) which exercises pervasive and exclusive control over the game of cricket in the State of Telangana, discharges public functions 9 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. The question of maintainability stands concluded in favour of petitioner by the Division Bench of this Court in M' @utnd Reddg rt. Hgderabad Cricket Assoclatlona, which has been followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in So,rdar Daljeet Slngh a, The Sto:te of Telangana MANU/TLl022812025. The Hon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman is the (ii) independent grievance redressal authority of Respondent No' 1 Association, constitutedunderitsRulesandRegulations'The Order dated 07 .O5.2O25 passed by the Hon'ble Ethics Ofhcer and Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial order' The said Order has not been challenged by Respondent No' 1 before any forum' has attained hnality, and binds Respondent No' 1 Association' The attention of this Court was drawn to Rule 4 1(3) (iii) to contend that decision of the Ombudsman shall be final and binding and shall come into force forthwith on being pronounced and delivered. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that (iv) conduct of Respondent is manifestly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. kamed counsel pointed out that whereas respondent acted with promptitude in giving effect to the Order passed by the Ombudsman in the matter relating to tJle appointment of Amarnath as President, Respondent has' in stark contrast, wantonly and deliberately delayed implementation of the order passed in favour of the Member Clubs. It was contended that such selective and discriminatory o (2017) 3 ALT 506 (DB) 10 impiementation of Orders emanating from the same authorily shorvs a clear lack of fairness and reasonableness, ald amounts to discrimination offending the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 . (") The plea of Respondent No. 1 that payment of developmcnt fund for the years 2Ol7-18 Lo 2024-25 is to be placed bcfore the General Body for fresh consideration is impermissrble in law, since it amounts to revisiting and unsettling a binding Order of the Ombudsman through a subordinate body, which is not contemplated under the Rules and Regulations ofthe Respondent No. 1. ("i) The plea of want of funds raised by Respondent No. 1 is hollou' on the face of the record, since Respondent No. 1 has admittedly, disbursed a sum in excess of Rs. 68 crores in favour of M / s Visaka Industries Limited on 04 .02.2026 and 07 .02.2026, at a point in time when the Order of the Ombudsman datecl 07.O5.2O25 had remained unimplemented for nearly a year. (vii) The conduct of Respondent No. 1 in selectively complying with the obligations that benefit a commercial entity while withholding comparatively modest payments due to the affiliated clubs under a binding Order of its own Ombudsman is manifestlv arbitrary., discriminatory and violative of Article l4 of the Constitution of Ind ia, and warrants intervention of this Court.

#5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 has, in support of the counter, made the following submissions: i1 The Writ Petition is not maintainable since (i) payment of development funds is an internal policy decision of the Respondent No. 1 Association, in respect of which the scope of judicial review is conhned to instances of manifest arbitrariness or mala fides, as held by the High Court of Delhi in Paratgmplc Commlttee of Indla a. Naresh Kumar Sho, nnas ' (ir) Respondent No. 1 is in the process of implementing resolution of the Apex Council dated 16.03.2026 for payment of the development fund of Rs. 3,O0,000/ - per annum to all registered and recognized clubs for tJle financial year 2026-27, and the question of payment for the past years from 2Ol7-18 lo 2024-25 will be placed before the General Body for appropriate action, having regard to the availability of funds with the Respondent No. 1 and the funds to be received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India. (iii) Petitioner's calculation of Rs. 27,O0,00O/- towards arrears is disputed, since the said period includes the years of limited cricket activity occasioned by Covid- 19 pandemic, during which the question of payment of any development fund did not arise. The payment of Rs. 68,73, 19,584 / - in favour of (iu) M/s Visaka Industries Limited was made in compliance with the Order dated 24.11.2025 of the Principal Special Court in CEP No. 22 of 2025 ar,d has no bearing upon the present case'

#6. The following points arise for consideration in this Writ F,etition: ' 2018 SCC Online De1.8443 t2 (1) Whether this Writ Petition against Respondent No. 1, being a society registered under the A.P. (T.A.) public Societies Registrat ion Act, 1350 Fasli, is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (i0 Whether the Respondents are bound to implement the Order dated O7.O5.2025 passed by the I{on'ble Ethics Officer ancl Ombudsman (Additional Charge) of the Respondent No. 1 Assocration in Case No. 41 of 2025, and pay the development fund of Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum to the petitioner from the financial vear 2O 1 7- 18 onwards? (iii) To what relief.2 7 Polnt No. (l): The first question that falls for consideration is whether the presr:nt Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against Respondent No. 1- Association. Articl<:226 confers upon this Court the power to issue writs, including writs in the nature of mandamus, to any person or authority for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The amenability of a non-statutory body to the writ jurisdiction of this Court depends not upon the legal status of the body, but upon the nature of the functions discharged by it. 13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control 8. Jor Cricket in India a. Crlcket Associatlon oJ Blhan6 ' has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India, being a body which exercises pervasive control over the game of cricket' regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others' formulates rules and regulations governing the sport, and discharges dulies of a public character with the tacit support of the State, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

#9. The Division Bench of this Court in M' @olnd Reddg u. Hgderabad Crlcket AssociatlonT, has applied the said principle to the Respondent No. 1 - Association in terms' The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "

#20. Just like the BCCI, HCA is also a registered society administering cricket in Hyderabad. It holds complete sway over cricket in the State of Telargana, and has exclusive authority to select the Hyderabad cricket tearn. lt controls the Rajiv Gandhi cricket stadium at Uppal. As the functions discharged by HCA are public functions, it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Ardcte 226 of the Constitution of India." The said position has been recently reiterated by 10. this Court in Sardar lro, feet Slngh u' The S-tate of u (2015) 3 scc 251 ' (201,71 3 ALT 506 (DB) l6 accordinglv held to be marntainable. Point No. (i) is answered in favour of Petit roner.

#14. Point No. lii): Having held the Writ Petition to be maintainable, this Court proceeds to examine whether Respondents are bound to implement the Order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Ethics Officcr and Ombudsman (Additional Charge) of Respondent No. 1 in Case No. 4l of 2025.

#15. The Flon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman is constituted under the Rules and Regulations of Respondent No. 1 Association as the independent grievance redressal authority of the Association, to adjudicate, inter alia, disputes between the Association and its Members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santhosh Kdntnakarq.n a. Ombud.sfitar. cum Ethics Officer, Kerala Crlcket Associatlont, while dealing with the proceedings of tl're Ombudsman of the Kerala Cricket Association, has affirmed that proceedings of al Ombudsman of a cricket Association are amenable to judicial scrutiny. The orders of the Ombudsman, once passed, bind the Association and its members until set aside in accordance with law. It folloqs that Respondent No. 1, having itself constituted the said ' 2o25 ri{sc 906 l7 authority under its own Rules and Reguiations and having submitted to its jurisdiction in Case No' 4l of 2025 ' cannot thereafter, treat adjudication of that authority as a mere recommendation, open to acceptance or rejection at its pleasure. On a careful consideration of the Order dated t6. 07.O5.2O25, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman has recorded the following findings' Firstly' Respondent No. 1 did not dispute the resolutions passed by the General Body in the Minutes of tine 77th Annual General Meeting at Item No. 5, the 81st Annual General Meeting at Item No 4 Clause (b), and the 86e Annual General Body Meeting at para 8(6), and the averments of petitioner in that regard could not be disputed. Secondly, no reasons were forthcoming for non- implementation of the resolution of the 8 1"t Annual General Body Meeting dated 13.O9.2O15' Thirdly, Rs' 3'00'OO0/- per annum was paid to each of the clubs in 2O15-16 and 2016-17 ' but was not paid from 2O17-18 onwards' On these findings' the operative portion of the Order directs Respondent No l to implement General Body Resolution dated 13'O9'2O15 passed at the 81.t Annual General Body Meeting at Item No' 4(b) and to pay the development fee of Rs' 3,OO,OOO/- per year to each of l8 the private Clubs from 2017-18 onwards within a period of eight weeks.

#17. It is not in dispute that the said Order has not been challengecl by Respondent No. 1 before any forum, and the same has attained finality. [t is also not in dispute that the period of eight weeks pres<:ribed in the Order expired on or about O2.O7.2O25, zrnd no payment has been made to petitioner pursuant to lhe s.rid Order till date. It is trite that an order which has attained finality binds the party against whom it operates, and it is not open to such party to sit in appeal over the said order or to defer compliance therewith indefinitely.

#18. During the course of hearing, this Court had inquired Iiom the lcarned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, :rs to whether Respondent No. I - Association is, in any manner, aggrieved by the Order dated O7.O5.2O25 passed bv the tlon'ble Ethics Ofhcer and Ombudsman (Additional Charge) in Case No. 41 of 2025. I-earned Standing Counsel, candidly and categorically submitted before this Court that Respondent No. 1 is not aggrieved by the said Order, and that no appcal or challenge has been preferred against the same before any lbrum. The said submission is placed on record and places the tnatter beyond the pale of controversy, inasmuch as l9 Respondent No. 1, by its own showing, does not question the correctness of the Order dated O7.05.2025, and the only question that survives for consideration is that of its implementation.

#19. The case set up by Respondent No. 1 in the counter, as appearing in paragraphs 6 and 8 thereof, is that the question of payment of development fund for 2Ol7-18 to 2024- 25 will be placed before the General Body Meeting consisting of all full members of Hyderabad Cricket Association to take appropriate action, and the decision in that regard primarily depends upon the funds available with Respondent No. 1 and the funds to be received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The contention does not commend itself to this Court for the following reasons.

#20. First, the entitlement of the Full Members of Respondent No. I including Petitioner to the development fund of Rs. 3,O0,000/- per annum from the financial year 2077-18 onwards is not in the realm of fresh consideration. It has been judicially determined by the Hon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman of Respondent No. 1, who is the constituted grievance redressal authority of the Association, by Order dated

07.O5.2O25. The Order is final and binding. To remit a settled 20 entitlement for fresh consideration by the General Body is, in substance, to permit a subordinate body to revisit, modify or set aside the Ordcr of the Ombudsman, which is not contemplated under the Rules and Regulations of the Respondent No. 1, and is impermissible in law. It is settled law that once an order is passed by the competent grievance redressal authority and has attained finality, the only legitimate course open to the body bound by such order is to implement the same or challenge it in a lbrum o[ superior jurisdiction. Respondent No. 1, havlng neither implemented the Order dated 07.O5.2O25 nor questioned it before a forum of competent jurisdiction, cannot be permitted to reopen a matter that already stands concluded by a hnal and binding adjudication of its own grievance redressal authority. 2I. Seconclly, the qualifrcation of 'availability of funds, and 'depending upon the funds received from the Board of Control for Cricket in India' relied upon by Respondent No. 1 is a qualification appended to the resolution of the 76th Annual General Meeting held on 22.O8.2O1O, which granted Rs. 1,00,000/ per annum. The resolution of the 81't Annual General Meeting dated 13.09.2015 at Item No.4 Clause (b), upon whiih the Order of the Ombudsman is founded. contains 2l no such qualification. The said resolution records that 'for the future, development fund of 3 lakhs will be paid to all the private clubs and cricket material to institutions' and the same was acknowledged and approved by the members The conduct of Respondent No. 1 in paying ttre said amount without demur for the hnancial years 2015-16 and 2016-17 is the best exposition of its own understanding that the said resolution was unconditional. The Hon'ble Ethics Ofhcer and Ombudsman' in the Order dated 07 05 2025, has expressly recorded that no reasons were forthcoming for the non-implementation of the said resolution, which implies that the plea of want of funds was either not raised before the Ombudsman or was not accepted by him. The Respondent No. 1, not having questioned the said Order, calnot be permitted to resurrect the plea of want of funds in coilateral proceedings before this Court' Thirdly, the plea of want of funds is, in ary event' 22. falsified by the admitted conduct of Respondent No' 1' It is not in dispute that on 04.O2 -2026 and 07 'O2'2026, Respondent No' 1 caused six Demand Drafts to be issued through Canara Bank' Dilsukhnagar Branch, Hyderabad, aggregating to Rs. 68,73,19,584/-, in favour of M/s Visaka Industries Limited' Respondent No. 1 itself, in paragraph 11 of the counter' admits 22 the said payment, while explaining it as having been made pursuant to the Order dated 24,11.2025 of the Principal Special Court in CEP No. 22 of 2025. Whether the said payment was made under conrt compulsion or otherwise is not material for the present purpose. The material fact is that Respondent No. 1 was, in February 2026, in a position to mobilise and disburse a sum in excess of Rs. 68 crores in favour of a private commercial entity, u,hile contemporaneously withholding the comparatively modest sum of Rs. 3,OO,OO0/- per annum payable to petitioner under the binding order of its own Ombudsman, which had remained unimplemented for over nine months as on that date. Thc plea of want of funds raised by Respondent No. I before this Court is therelore, hollow and is rejected.

#23. It is settled lar.r, that an authority whrch discharges public functions is bound to act in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution and is precluded from picking and choosing the obligations u,hich it would honour and those which it would not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board, of Control for Cricket ln Indla v. Cricket Assoclation of Bthar (supra) has held that all actions of such a body, when subjected to scrutiny, are to be judged by the standards and principles that govern similar actions taken by the State or its instrumentalities. 23 Tested on this anvil, the conduct of Respondent No' 1 in promptly disbursing Rs. 68 crores in favour of a commercial entity while withholding the development fund payable to petitioner under a binding Order of its own Ombudsman is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

#24. The objection of Respondent No. I to petitioner's calculation of Rs. 27,00,00O/- as arrears, on the ground that the said period includes the period of Iimited cricket activity occasioned by the Covid- 19 paldemic, is without substalce' The resolution of the 8 l"t Annual General Meeting dated

13.O9.2015, as understood and implemented by Respondent No' 1 itself in the hnancial years 2015-16 and 2016-77, is not conditioned upon any specified level of cricket activity in a given year. The Order of the Ombudsman dated 07 -O5.2O25 directs payment of Rs. 3,O0,OOO/- per year from 2ol7-1a onwards in terms, without exception or modification. Petitioner's calculation, being Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum for nine financial years from 2017-18 to 2025-26, totaliing Rs. 27,0O,OO0/-, flows arithmetically from the said Order. The objection of Respondent No. 1 is accordingly overruled. 24

#25. Sulfice it to state that Respondent No. 1, being a bod1. that discharges public functions, is bound to implement the Order dated 07.05.2O25 passed by its own Hon'ble Ethics Officer and Ombudsman in true letter and spirit. The continued inaction ol Respondents in implementing the said Order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and u,arrants issuzrnce of a Writ of Mandamus. It is well-settled that a Writ of Mandamus lies to compel a body amenable to Arricle 226 to discharge an obligation which it is in law bound to perform, and thq. fersistent failure of Respondent No. 1 to give effect to a final and binding order of its own Ombudsman, in respect of u'hich no challenge has ever been laid, is a ht case for the exercise of that jurisdiction. Point No. (ii) is ansu.ered accordingly in favour of Petitioner.

#26. Point No. (iii): ln light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that Petitioner has made out a case warranting interference bv this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to implement and comply with the Order dated O.7.O5.2025 in its true lctter and spirit, and to pay the 25 development fund of Rs. 3,OO,OOO l- per annum from the lrnancial year 2Ol7 -18 onwards, amounting to a total of Rs. 27,OO,OOO/- for the period from the financial year 2Ol7-18 to the financial year 2025-26 to each of the private clubs of Respondent No. 1, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. 27 . Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD-.:-r' EPUTY REGIS CTION OFFICER To,

#1. The Chief Executive Officer, THE HYDERABAD C KET ASSOCIATION, having office at Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad,

#2. SINGLE MEMBER CoMMITTEE, the Hyderabad Cricket Association, The office at Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Cricket Stadium' Uppal, Hyderabad

#3. One CC to SRI ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI V. RAJENDER RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies BN BS HIGH COURT DATED: 1510612026 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.7163 of 2026 1t1 E ST4 r€: o 1 7 JUN 2025 z o .k D ... )F - i'\ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 Ja6