High Court · 2025

g that in the circumstances stated the High Court may be pleased to prohibiting him from discharge his of Appeal otherwise, the petitioner would be put to Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.GOVIND REDDy Counset for the Respondent No.1: SRI GUDI SATISH REODy, SC FOR SATG COUNSEI fOrthE RESPONdENT NO.2: ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT BLE SRI AND TIIE HON' BLE SRI JU STI CEG .M. MOHIUDDIN WRI T o.8N 32 ol 2025 JUDGM ENT: Heald Sri M' Govincl Reddy' leamed counsel for the appellant and Perused the record'

2. Short of unnecessary details' the present writ appeal is filed b,v the *'rit petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20'06'2025 passed in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28798 of 2024wherein the learned Single Judge held inter petitioner is not an aggrieved person and negated the challenge to the election of respondent No'4 as General Secretary of respondent No'3 i'e'' Telangana State Basket Ball Association (for short'' Association')' alia that theappellant/writ

3. The aPPellant had filed aggrieved bY the actron W.P.No.28798 of 2024 ol' respondent No'l in the nomination of respondent No'4 for disqualif,ing/rejecting election as General Secretary of the Association' 2 IN Association,

4. The appellant also filed another Writ petition vide W.P.No.28797 of 2024 questioning rhe action olrespondent No.3_ continuing respondent No.4 as its General Secretary, despite the fact that respondent No.4 was convictcd and sentenced in relation to offences committed under Section 420 of lndian l,enal Code, 1g60 and Secrions 13(l) and l-j(lXd) o1_the Prevention of Corruption AcL l9gg.

5. l'he leamed Singte Judge dismissed W.P.Nos"28797 and 28798 af 2024 by a common order.dated 20.06.2025 hol<Jing inrer ctlia thaL the appellant was not a person aggrieved inasmuch as he did not suffer any injury to his legar right or interest. 6. The appellant herein challenges the order oi the learned single Judge inter aria on the ground that the interest or the relevant community or the Societ y at large shall be adr.ersely affected if respondent No.4 is allowcd to conlinue as tite Sccretary of the Association. Fufther, it is the case of the appellant that respondent No.4 had misused the funds of the Association. The appellant further contends that respondent No.4 carries seal of i ; I I I t I I I I I i ; I l j I I i I J conviction notwithstanding the suspension of the sentence in the criminal aPPeal 1 maintain a writ Petition; th ltisfurthercaseoftheappeltantthatthecriterionofan aggrieved Person runs contrary to the doctrine of sufficient interest at he was holding the Post of President of Warangal Basket Balt Association and that he has a keen interest in the sport' which the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated and considered the fact that the continuation of respondent No'4 as the Secretary of the Association would be contrary to the sport ofBasket Ball at large' 8. It is settled position of law that the concept of a person aggrieved alone being ent'itled to seek redtessal under the writ jurisdiction has been well settled in a catena of decisions of the Ilon'ble Supreme Court' ln the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v' Collectort, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that:

58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat' ex-President v'as the complainant' thus, qt the n'tost, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not clai m the status of an adversarial liligant The comPlainant cannot be the PartY to the lis. A lesg,I lJgUj;Jl4 is a bene itlemenl dr$tns out of law In fact. it averme nt ol en[ i (20 t2) 4 scc 407 4 .: 'j. a J con erre na erson rS mle li the rule o law Thu.t Q rson wfut onl challen elhe act L)r omtsston. There may he some hor* * loss that may not be wro ng/ul in the eyc oJ'the lnv becquse ir m(r/ not result in injury to o legal right or legally, ?rotected interest of the complainant blt juridically harn of this tles-cripti on i.y called tlantnunt s,ine injuriu 59 7'he o ecl t e.lI In IC rm to he has h that he has been,le o lLarty in a

60. (iruter rh rmi ed e gar lo nt b ol beinPon9Cessar ake a case trs that o ) Party, a DErst l ca eneral blic intu:r CSI, A persort ltat'ittg 0 remote tnteres[ connot be permitted b become a por\ in the li.s. as the person u,ho wqnts lo become u [;arty in a case, has to e"-tablish thal he has a proprietary ri.'ght u,hich hls been or is threatenecl to be violated, for the reason thal a legal tn1ury creutet a remedial right in the injured person. .7 person cannot be heurtl qs a party unle .ys he anstuers the tlescriplion ql' aggrieved porty. (Virle Adi pherozshah Gandhi y. ,lth,oca Gentral of lluhara:;htru [(1970) 2 SCC 484 ; AIR 1g7t s(, 385l ,lasbhni Motihhai Desoi v. Roshan Kumar [(l g7O t SC.C 671 AIR 1976 SC 578J . Maharaj Singh v. Stote of U.p. [( I 977) I .\(I /ji AtR ts-6 S(. 26 021 Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal [Q002) I SC:C 33J and Kabusltiki Kaishu '[oshibu Tosiba lppliunce.s Co. 1e008) t 0 SCC 766J ) The I Iig/t Courr .fuiled to uppreciate thal it was a case of politicttl r.itulrv. The case o.f'the uppellanl lrus not been considered in tht: iorrecr persl)ecth.e dl all. :, (emphask suppliett) j 1 i I l 5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinoy Kumar v' State of U'P'2 ' was pleased to hold as under: "h"re .b'tnrylolotnd n*i"*'" of o "f i'. fo'ou' uf un'\u' 'A'ti't-n 226 i ""'t' haun

2. Generall! soeakinq' a nerson sholl have no l'.ogus tlaltdi '!o {ile a writ oetition if he is not oJrsonallv affected b.v the imousned hon' "ith" buqn dirn'.|.I' u' TfriTirindo^*tol 'isht' ,ishts brine inuo'Lnd o' his a;;e ';;;fr;pti'obk 'uks:The '"lief T#frffn iTiion 'h' 'h" 'ish' perro, inroki,g the.iu'i'di'ti"o Thn exception to the general rule rhe wrir applied lbr is a writ of habeas ;;i;;;, ;, ;r* *aruanto or filed in public interest tt is a matter qf ';r;;;;, (t'\erit 'iuri\diclhn pntdence, that lhe court conJines the "xe'cis" k)casesl,herelegalwrongorlegaliniuricsurc..,ouscdtoa rights are violated' and not oarticular person or his -/undamentil ';';:;,;:;,,;";;;"s'of indi'iilut n"o'g o' injurv ar the instance of irra Orrr, where there is an effective legal aid ^orgalti'ration Etten in cases filed in public which con take care of 'i:in;;r;st, th, court can arcrcise the v)rit jurisdiction at the instance 'rii" ir,r, party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or burden is threatened and such person or i*i',ir)i ti tlelerminedclassoJpersonsis'byreasonofpovetly,helplessncss or disability or socially or econ'omically disadvantaged position' unable to approach the court for relief 'uch "os"''' 'llegal (emphasis supptied) Tlre Apex Court in S'P' Gupta v' (Jnion of India3' has held as under:

17. It may therefore now be taken as well established that t'herc a -t"grt t rong o, a l"gal injury is caused to a pe.rson ot ,to cleterminate class ol persons by reason of violation o{ any -ro,nrtitutionot or legal right or any burden is imposed in of any constitutional or legol provision or without irJ'to, or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal -outnority "tru'r;r,**" a ' (zoo t) a scc l:a 3 I98l supp scc 87 6 burden is threatenerl and such person or determirute class of perso,s is by reason of poverty, helplessness o, OUrbrrrr, o, socially or economit a p p r o a c h t h e C o u r t ;::' :,i;;';::, ff: :, !,.'jj, ?; " ;,:; ::,,; maintuin an application fo, o, opproprior" iii,,,",,, order or writ in the l{igh Court unrte, Arrici ZZO ,ra if rt/ breach o/ ary. / ndamantul right o/.,such ,"rrr, o,r-irrnrir,nc,e clttss of. r ji : ! ;:i :: * { i,' ; ;:i : : : ; ; " :i " ; ; ::; : : determinate clus.; of persons... : r :: "rir" " " (emphasit supplied) .; \. '. 1, ..f' t' ,r' t ..' \ a.

9. The leamed counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance in Gorlde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Antthra pradeslt qnd Othersa particularly para g, rvhich reads as under: i",i#1';:r|';i!;"r,::,::!;'1"' the appettant had tocus standi to iite , ,7 c,r,;,y11;,i,.,:,;r",;;;';::;,i;::;,:: i:: :r{:,[:;.;;,,,,., rhis ('ourr i:'i::: : q,i."i,in ;ri,i'i,"!,l,ii,' !r"xr::li,il:,: * tttu'n Ltndcr Anic!e )26 of th( ('on.\titution in rhc Hieh (i,ttr. ,',1:;;'r"; !:"if,;:'i 'n", ""'l fkts the appellunt appeal ha"- ar6en Samithi o Dharm committee with the ' AIR i966-sc 828 .lile the petition out of which rhe present is the Presidenlo the m v s o t '7 the Prim LIealt h m the villa ers or settifi o contrib utlons Ccn re The said committee collected Rs l 0,000 and dePosited the same ttilh the Block DeveloPment Officer. The apPellant rePresenled the llage in all its dealings with the Block DeveloPment Commifiee and the P anchaYttt Samithi in the mattur of the location of the Prim ary Health Cenlre at Dharmaj igudem' IIis conduct, the acquiescence on the part of' the other members of the comm i ee, and the h'eatmenl meted oul lo him rence that he u'as by the authorities concerned supporl the infe authori,nrt ,o or, on behalf of the committee The said poftion of the judgment does not in any way advance the cause of the aPPellant' t0. It is to be noted that the appellant/writ petitioner has failed to explain as to how his legal right or legal interest was inlringed and also fa,ed to prove as to how he is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No'3-Association' of which the appellant is not a member. The appellant therefore cannot be allowed to meddle in any proceeding unless he satisfies the requirement of being an aggrieved person whose tegat right or interest is adversely affected' Further, the appellant' tbr the reasons best known to him chosen to file the present appeal only against the order passed in W.P.No.2STS8of2024ignoringtheorderpassedinotherwrit petition vide W'P'No 28797 ol2024' It is pertinent to note that the Telangana State Basket Ball I1. AssociationByeJawsdonotcontemplatedisqualificationof I 8 respondent No.4 on the ground of conviction in a criminal offence or on the ground ofpendency ofa criminal offence. 12. The appellant has failed to make out any ground warranting the interference of this Court in the well reasoned order of the learned Sirrglc Judge.

13. Th.erefore, this Court is of the view of that the appellant not being a member of respondent No.3_Association ancl having failed to establish that he is an aggrieved person cannot be allowed to call in question the reasoneci order of the leamed Single Judge. .Ihe writ appeal is devoid of merit and is liable [o be dismissed. 14' Accordingly, the writ Appear is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SO.K.SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REG STRAR To, sEc OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt M.cOVtND REDDy, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRI K.R.K.V.PRASAD, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI A.RAV| KtRAN, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRt GUD| SATTSH REDDY, SC FOR SATG [OPUC] 5' one cc to ADDL. solrcrroR GENERAL oF rNDrA, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad topUcj'- Two CD Copies o BSR LS \1r HIGH COURT DATED: 04tOBt2O2S JUDGMENT WA.No.832 of 2025 ,,r'c \ /r. /t Q^ :)t 1 0 sEP 2025 ,.,.,rTnp.i DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS o"l^ad- Y-r- ),'"\N