Ameen Pathan S/o Shri Ameer Mohammed Pathan, Hony v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Youth Affairs And

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Youth Affairs And Sports Department Jaipur Rajasthan

2. Secretary, Youth Affairs And Sports Department, Jaipur Rajasthan.

3. Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Chhatrapati Shivaji Sahkari Bhawan, Kota.

4. Adhoc Committee District Cricket Association Kota, Having Address At J.k. Pavalian Nyapura Kota Through Its Convenor. Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4916/2025 ----Respondents

1. Kota District Cricket Association, Near Govt. School, Jhalawar Road, Anantpura, Kota (Raj.), Through Its Secretary Mr. Ameen Pathan S/o Shri Ameer Mohammed Pathan, Resident Of Near Govt. School, Anantpura, Kota- 324005 (Raj.)

2. Ameen Pathan S/o Shri Ameer Mohammed Pathan, Aged About 51 Years, Hony. Secretary Kota District Cricket Association Resident Of Near Govt. School, Anantpura, Kota-324005 (Raj.) Versus ----Petitioners

1. Appellate Authority Cum Secretary, Youth Affairs And Sports Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Registrar, Co- Operative Societies, Chhatrapati Shivaji Sahkari Bhawan, Kota.

3. Shivcharan Vijay, Enquiry Officer, Office Of Special Auditor, Office Of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Kota ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (2 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. S.S. Hora Mr. Adesh Arora Mr. Ramesh Chand Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar, AGC Mr. Sanwar Mal Sharma, Ms. Pooja Sharma Mr. Sunil Samdaria Mr. Arihant Samdaria HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN O R D ER DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/06/2025

1. Matters come upon application seeking vacation of interim order dated 03.04.2025 whereby elections for electing a new Executive of Kota District Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as 'KDCA') has been stayed. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, both writ petitions, which are interconnected, have been heard finally and are being decided by this common order.

2. The writ petition (No.4916/2025) has been filed on behalf of petitioner KDCA through its Secretary Mr. Ameen Pathan seeking direction to the respondent Appellate Authority Cum Secretary, Youth Affairs and Sports Department, Jaipur to decide the pending appeal under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005' for brevity), within three months from the date of passing order under Section 24 of the Act of 2005 that is 24.01.2025 and to decide the interim application filed [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (3 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] along with the appeal within fifteen days. This appeal has been filed by the petitioner KDCA challenging the order dated 24.01.25 whereby the respondent Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act of 2005, has disqualified the petitioner KDCA and appointed Adhoc Executive Committee.

3. After filing the above writ petition, vide order/communication dated 12.03.2025, the respondent Adhoc Committee has announced elections for executive committee of KDCA, scheduled to be held on 08.04.2025 from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM and the schedule of the elections was also declared. Being aggrieved with the notice for election dated 12.03.2025, the petitioner Ameen Pathan, Honorary Secretary to KDCA has preferred writ petition (No.5158/2025).

4. As per the facts averred in the writ petitions, the Registrar, in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, initiated enquiry against the petitioner KDCA on the complaint of office bearer of two clubs namely Bharat Club Kota and Rival Club Kota and appointed Shri Shivcharan Vijay as enquiry officer. On

17.01.2025, the enquiry officer concluded enquiry against the petitioner Association and fixed the matter for appearance on

23.01.2025. On 23.01.2025, the petitioners appeared but without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Registrar, in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act of 2005, vide order dated on 24.01.2025, declared the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (4 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] KDCA disqualified and appointed Adhoc Committee over petitioner Cricket Association, directing it to hold elections within three months and to re-constitute Primary Sports Bodies (PSBs) as per Section 10(3) of the Act of 2005.

5. The petitioner KDCA challenged the order dated 24.01.2025 by way of filing appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2005 before Appellate Authority, which is pending till date. After passing of the order dated 24.01.2025, vide communication dated 12.03.2025, the Adhoc Committee has announced election for KDCA. Aggrieved by the election notice dated 12.03.2025 issued by Adhoc Committee District Cricket Association, Kota, writ petition (No.5158/2025) has been preferred by petitioner Ameen Pathan.

6. By order dated 03.04.2025, an interim order was passed in both the writ petitions whereby process for electing a new Executive of KDCA, declared by the Adhoc Committee, scheduled on 08.04.2025, was stayed. The respondent Adhoc Committee District Cricket Association challenged the interim stay order in appeal (DBSAW No.307/2025) before Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 09.04.2025, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of the appeal with liberty to the Adhoc Committee to make prayer for early disposal of the application for vacating stay order before learned Single Bench. In pursuance thereof, the respondent Adhoc Committee has filed an application for vacating interim stay order. [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (5 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] However, as stated above, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard finally.

7. It is contended by Shri S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Adhoc Committee has been appointed vide order dated 24.01.2025 in utter violation of principle of natural justice as no sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Assailing the order dated 24.01.2025 appointing Adhoc committee, an appeal under Section 35 of the Act has been filed before the appellate authority, which is pending till date and before final decision of the appeal, the Adhoc Committee whose appointment is under challenge in appeal, elections have been announced for electing a new Executive of KDCA, which is totally incorrect and illegal. Shri Hora further submits that the order dated 24.01.2025 is illegal as same has been passed in contravention of provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2005. The order dated 24.01.2025 has been passed just one day after the enquiry report is supplied. The petitioner has not been provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to explain their case which is clear violation of principle of nature justice. He also submits that no reconstitution of PSBs can take place in the present case as there was neither any complaint against any of the PSBs nor was any notice served to them. Apart from above, the Adhoc Committee has not served notice for reconstitution of PSBs. The reconstitution of PSBs was carried out in an illegal, arbitrary and opaque manner, sabotaging and weakening fairness and legitimacy of the entire election process. It is also argued that lack [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (6 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] of transparency is apparent from the fact that when the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, on 17.03.25, he was provided with a list of registered members and office bearers that materially differed from the once announced by respondent on 12.03.2025. Reliance has been placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Election Commission of India versus Bajrang Bahadur Singh & Ors. reported in (2015) 12 SCC 570. With these submissions, Shri Hora craves acceptance of writ petitions.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is argued that on the basis of complaints submitted against KDCA by Bharat Club and Rival Club, the Registrar exercised powers under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 and initiated enquiry against KDCA appointing Shivcharan Vijay, Inspector Cooperative Societies as Enquiry Officer. After providing due opportunity of hearing to the Executive Body of KDCA, enquiry report was prepared on 17.01.2025, which was submitted in the office of Registrar on 20.01.2025. Upon receiving the enquiry report, the Registrar exercised his powers under Section 24 of the Act of 2005 and called upon the executive body of KDCA to explain their stance qua the serious allegations levelled against them which stood proved in the enquiry. The Registrar vide detailed order dated 24.01.2025 reached to a conclusion that serious illegalities, financial and otherwise have been committed by the KDCA and they have grossly violated the provisions of the [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (7 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] Act of 2005 and Rules made thereunder and in sequel to the aforesaid conclusion, the Registrar in exercise of powers available to him under Section 24(a) of the Act of 2005 constituted an Adhoc Committee. The Committee, which was given task of conducting the election within a period of three months, has issued notification for election of electing new Executive of KDCA. It is submitted that Section 24 of the Act of 2005 mandates that elections are to be held within three months upon constitution of Adhoc Committee and thus in pursuance to the directions given by the Registrar in order dated 24.01.2025, the respondent Adhoc Committee in its meeting held on 12.03.2025, decided to hold elections. The schedule of election was also dispatched to all the Primary Sports Bodies of KDCA vide letter(s) dated 12.03.2025.

9. Learned counsel Shri Samdariya, argues that time and again, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Courts cannot interfere in the election process once it has commenced. In the instant case, in compliance of the directions given by Registrar vide order dated 24.01.2025, the election process has been notified on 12.03.2025 and it commenced on 17.03.2025 and thus, any interference in the election process at this stage is totally uncalled for. Lastly, it is submitted that Section 16 of the Act of 2005 provides a statutory remedy of Arbitration and Conciliation if there exist any dispute in relation to management activity, election or claim to any affiliation of any sports association and thus, the instant writ petitions are not maintainable in view of mandate of Section 16 of the Act of 2005. [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (8 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] It is also argued that the petitioner without having availed statutory remedy, has directly filed the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Shaji K. Joseph Versus V. Viswanath & Ors. reported in (2016) 4 SCC 429. He thus, sought dismissal of both the writ petitions.

10. In counter, learned counsel Shri Hora submits that availability of statutory remedy under the Act would not create an absolute bar in invocation of writ jurisdiction when there is an apparent violation of rule/law and injustice is caused. He submits that in the instant case, in utter violation of principles of natural justice, the respondents have taken impugned action, causing injustice to the petitioner and in these circumstances, without availing statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction can be invoked by the petitioner. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. versus Tantia Construction Private Ltd. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697.

11. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through material available on record.

12. The first point which comes up for consideration before this Court is that whether an election process can be stopped or postponed after its commencement. Free and fair elections are the [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (9 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] cornerstone of democratic governance, including elections of all kinds of governing bodies. Elections are usually best conducted in their usual course, i.e., without any interference and interruptions. This is due to a multitude of reasons. To ensure the smooth functioning of governance, it is pertinent to understand the importance of elections, and how delays, including judicial interference, might prove to be detrimental to the very foundation of governing bodies and their process of elections. If the Court, for example, in this case stays the election process after its announcement, it will lead to an administrative paralysis, nay practical chaos. The process of elections involves huge logistical operations, staying which would not only lead to wastage of resources but also a blatant violation of Section-16 of the Act of 2005 which provides for Conciliation and Arbitration, if any issue arises relating to elections.

13. The legal consensus is that once the election process has commenced, it cannot be stopped or postponed, except under specific circumstances such as natural calamities or severe law and order issues. This principle is supported by various legal provisions and judicial precedents. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the election process encompasses all stages from the notification of elections to the declaration of results. Any disputes or challenges must wait until the election is concluded.

14. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, reported in AIR 1952 SC 64., Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that challenges [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (10 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] to any stage of the election process must be deferred until after the election results are declared, emphasizing that the election process should not be interrupted. Various High Courts have echoed this sentiment, stating that once the election process is initiated, it should proceed without interference. For instance, in the case of Kuldeep Srivastava & Ors v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1990) 1 RLR 421, it was determined by this Court that the Registrar had no authority to postpone elections once the process had begun.

15. While the election process is generally protected from judicial interference, courts may intervene if there is a clear case of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power by the Election Commission, provided such intervention does not disrupt the election process. While it is quintessential to take into account this principle of non-interference, it is also important to understand that this principle is not and cannot be absolute. While it is a good practice of the judiciary to not interfere in any election process after its announcement, such interference becomes inevitable in some special circumstances. Such exceptions would arise when executive actions subvert principles of fairness and equal opportunity. Such extraordinary circumstances also might include cases in which such interference would preserve, rather than disrupt, the election sanctity. The courts can interfere in rare and unusual instances, such as when elections are fundamentally corrupted or rights are irreparably infringed, but with that being said, staying the entire election should be the last choice, not the [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (11 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] first reaction. The courts generally should not interfere in the election process once it has commenced, as this could disrupt the democratic process. However, the courts can intervene in limited circumstances to correct or smoothen the election proceedings, as long as the intervention does not interrupt, obstruct or delay the election process. Overall, the courts must balance the need to preserve the integrity of the election process with the ability to correct any serious irregularities or illegalities that may materially affect the election results.

16. Secondly, Section 16 of the Act of 2005 needs to be referred here, which provides for arbitration and conciliation. For the sake of ready-reference, same is reproduced hereinbelow:- "16. Conciliation and Arbitration.- (1) If any dispute arises touching the constitution, management activity, election or claim to affiliation of any Sports Association, the same shall be resolved through conciliation and arbitration. (2) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act No. 26 of 1996), as amended from time to time, shall apply to the conciliation and arbitration proceedings referred under subsection (1)." 17 From plain reading of the language of the aforesaid section, it is clear that if any dispute arises with regard to constitution, management activity, election or affiliation of any Sports Association, same shall be resolved through conciliation and arbitration. But without availing the same, the writ petition has been filed before this Court. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, I am of the [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (12 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] view that these judgments were passed in peculiar facts and circumstances and are of no avail to the petitioner's case. In the case of Election Commission of India Versus Bajrang Bahadur Singh & Ors. (supra), the dispute with regard to the disqualification of the appellant arose after his election and it was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Governor only decides whether a legislator has incurred any disqualification under Article 191 (1) of the Constitution of India on a particular date but in the present case, the dispute is quite different. So far as the another Judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Ors. Versus Tantia Construction Private Limited (supra) is concerned, it appears that judgment was passed in entirely different factual matrix wherein it was held that in terms of Clause 23(2) of the Agreement, the Petitioners were entitled to alter and increase/decrease the scope of the work is not attracted to the facts of this case where the entire design of the Rail Over-Bridge was altered, converting the same into a completely new project. It was not merely a case of increase or decrease in the scope of the work of the original work schedule covered under Tender No.76 of 06-07, but a case of substantial alteration of the plan itself and in these circumstances, it was held that as there is substantial alteration of the plan itself, writ petition can be maintained without exhausting alternative remedy but in the present case, no such circumstances are appearing as election process was initiated on

12.03.2025 by notifying election and election process commenced on 17.03.2025. It would be relevant to mention here that sufficient time and opportunity was available with the petitioner to [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (13 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] avail the alternative remedy as per provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 2005 but he filed this writ petition before this court only on

02.04.2025 just six days before the date on which election was scheduled to be conducted. Accordingly, the writ petition (No.5158/2025) is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy for resolving the dispute by arbitration and conciliation as per provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 2005. If the petitioner initiates action under Section 16, within four weeks, same would be treated within limitation.

18. Thus, in view of aforesaid observations and ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the cases referred to supra, I am not inclined to interfere in the election process of Executive Body of KDCA in pursuance of election notice dated 12.03.2025 as election process has already started. Due to currency of interim order, the election schedule has already expired and therefore, the respondents are directed to fix fresh schedule and date for the elections. The election process shall be resumed/continued from the stage when interim order dated

03.04.2025. However, since the appeal under Section 35 of the Act is still pending before the appellate authority, final result of the election would be subject to the outcome of the appeal. Meaning thereby, till final decision of the appeal, final result of the election may not be declared. Needless to observe here that all the grounds/pleadings raised by counsel for the petitioner in writ petitions shall be considered by the appellate authority while [2025:RJ-JP:22836] (14 of 14) [CW-5158/2025] deciding the appeal as these factual aspects cannot be addressed in writ jurisdiction.

19. In order that final result of elections may not be delayed unnecessarily, the respondent Appellate Authority cum Secretary is directed to decide the appeal finally within two months from today. It is also expected that the interim application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal may be decided expeditiously. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition (No.4916/2025) stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, in both the writ petitions also stands disposed of. GAUTAM JAIN /733 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J