KERALA CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2025-04-10. KERALA CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 “C. R. ” IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON TH THURSDAY, THE 10 DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 5997 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KERALA CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION, REG. NO. 1471/1990, HAVING ADDRESS AT TC 20/1232, KARAMANA P. O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, E. K. RIYAS, PIN – 695002. BY ADVS. SANTHAN V. NAIR SHRI. R. RENJITH CHRISTEENA P GEORGE SAFAL P. SALIM RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 3 KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, BEHIND SECRETARIAT, YMCA ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 695001.
4 CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA, DUNDLOD HOUSE, CIVIL LINES, HAWA SADAK, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY WITH EMAIL DUNDLOD@DIL. IN, PIN – 302019. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 5 CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION OF KERALA, VII/144, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 683501. 6 SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM COMPLEX (EAST GATE), LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110003. BY ADVS. SUMEET SINGH SHOKEEN SUMESH CHAKKADATH SUBRAMANIAN C S ARUN BABU(K/1240/2004) SRI. E. G. GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02. 04. 2025, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS. 10343/2023 AND 30792/2023, THE COURT ON 10. 04. 2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V.
MENON TH THURSDAY, THE 10 DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 10343 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KERALA CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION, REG NO. 1471/1990, T. C. 20/1232, KARAMANA P. O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695002. BY ADVS. SANTHAN V. NAIR SHRI. R. RENJITH SAFAL P. SALIM RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 3 KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, BEHIND SECRETARIAT, YMCA ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 4 CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA. DUNDLOD HOUSE, CIVIL LINES, HAWA SADAK, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY WITH EMAIL DUNDLOD@DIL. IN, PIN – 302219. 5 CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION OF KERALA, VII/144, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 683501. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 6 SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SAI HEAD OFFICE, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, LODHI ROAD, DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN – 110003. 7 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P. O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 695004. 8 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 5TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, S. S. KOVIL ROAD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 9 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DPI JUNCTION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. BY ADVS. ARUN BABU C. S. SUMESH(K/1159/2005) SRI. SUMEET SINGH SHOKEEN SRI. E. G. GORDEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02. 04. 2025, ALONG WITH WP(C). 5997/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 10. 04. 2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V.
MENON TH THURSDAY, THE 10 DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 30792 OF 2023 PETITIONERS: 1 CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - PRAVEN CHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, EEG NO. EKM/TC/153/2016, VII /144, EROOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683501. 2 PRAVEEN CHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, KURUNJIKKADAN, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683510. BY ADVS. C. S. SUMESH ARUN BABU RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 2 STATE OF KERALA, SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 3 CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DUNLOD HOUSE, CIVIL LINES, HAWA SADAK, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, PIN – 302019. 4 KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, YMCA ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 5 KERALA CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY, E. K. RIYAS, T. C 20/1232, KARAMANA P. O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695002. 6 KERALA SPORTS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL YMCA ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS. LATHA ANAND SANTHAN V. NAIR R. RENJITH(K/735/1999) SAFAL P. SALIM(K/003562/2022) SRI. SUMEET SINGH SHOKEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02. 04. 2025, ALONG WITH WP(C). 5997/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 10. 04. 2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 JUDGMENT [W. P(C) Nos.
5997, 10343 and 30792 of 2023] These three connected writ petitions are filed with reference to the recognition of the Association representing the sport of Cycle Polo in Kerala under the provisions of the Kerala Sports Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “Sports Act”) and the Kerala Sports Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Sports Rules”) as well as the affiliation by the Cycle Polo Federation of India. 2. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 is filed by the Kerala Cycle Polo Association (hereinafter referred to as “KCPA”) contending that the same was formed during 1968 by the legendary Col. Goda th Varma Raja and affiliated with the 4 respondent - Cycle Polo Federation of India (hereinafter referred to as the “National Federation”), from 1970 onwards as evidenced by Ext. P1. It is further stated that the petitioner had obtained registration under the Travancore - Cochin (Literary, Scientific and Charitable) Societies Registration Act, 1954, as evidenced by Ext. P2.
The th petitioners contend that in the meantime, the 5 respondent – W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 Cycle Polo Association of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as “CPAK”) was formed by some individuals against whom nd disciplinary proceedings were taken by the 2 respondent – rd State of Kerala and the 3 respondent - the Kerala State Sports Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Sports Council”). Later, the CPAK sought recognition from the Sports Council which was objected to by the petitioner Association-KCPA. The matter was considered by this Court in W. P(C) No. 28433 of 2018 and connected cases and as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 23. 02. 2022, this Court directed the Standing Committee of the Sports Council to take a decision on the withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner Association as well as on the request for recognition th filed by the 5 respondent herein - CPAK.
This Court further directed the status quo as regards the recognition of the petitioner Association to be maintained till a decision as above is taken. 2. 1. On the basis of the directions as above, the Secretary of the Sports Council considered the claims made by the W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 petitioner and CPAK as evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 25. 07. 2022. It was found, with reference to the provisions of Section 31(1A) of the Sports Act, that CPAK has not produced majority of the documents required to be produced for seeking recognition and hence, registration cannot be extended to CPAK.
The Sports Council also found that the Secretary of CPAK, was one who was directed to be kept out of the affairs of Cycle Polo by the Sports nd Council and the 2 respondent, without taking note of the afore, the said person was permitted by the National Federation to meddle in the activities of Cycle Polo and hence decided to reject the application filed by CPAK and to continue with the registration of the petitioner Association herein. 2. 2. The petitioner, thereafter, points out that it submitted Ext. P5 application dated 02. 08. 2022 relying on Ext. P4 proceedings of the Sports Council before the National Federation and seeking affiliation of the petitioner Association. The Sports Council, also addressed the Secretary of the National Federation as per Ext. P6 dated 26. 08. 2022, stating that the petitioner alone W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 is the recognized Association under the Sports Act as far as the State of Kerala is concerned. 2. 3.
The order at Ext. P4 was the subject matter of challenge at the instance of CPAK before this Court in W. P(C) No. 28587 of 2022 and by Ext. P7 judgment dated 10. 11. 2022, noticing that the CPAK has already filed an appeal before the Kerala State Sports Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Tribunal”), directed the matter to be decided by the said appellate authority. 2. 4. The Appellate Tribunal, by Ext. P8 judgment dated 11. 01. 2023, rejected the appeal filed by CPAK. 2. 5. The petitioner further contends that they selected the players to represent the State in the National Championships scheduled to be held during December, 2022 and since, they were denied permission to participate, W. P(C) No. 39313 of 2022 was filed seeking appropriate directions. This Court by Ext. P9 interim order dated 15. 12. 2022, found that under the Sports Act “there can only be one recognized association for one sports W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 discipline” eligible for grace marks and other benefits, that the championships conducted by CPAK, if any, cannot be recognized under the Sports Act and therefore, directing the National Federation to permit the players selected by the petitioner Association to participate in the championships. 2. 6. The petitioner further points out that in spite of the above, the players selected by them were not permitted to participate in the championships and hence, Cont. Case (C) No. 2657 of 2022 was filed and the matter is pending consideration before this Court at the stage of trial. 2. 7. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed seeking directions to the National Federation to grant affiliation(renewal) to the petitioner Association, at the earliest and to disaffiliate the CPAK and also not to extend any assistance to them. 2. 8. A detailed counter affidavit dated 22. 01.
2024 has been filed by the National Federation contending that the writ petition is not maintainable, that no fundamental right of the petitioner W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 is infringed or effected, that the petitioner is a habitual litigator having filed various frivolous petitions before this Court for harassing the National Federation, that the matter has gained the attention of this Court on earlier occasions and the petitioner was not granted any reliefs, etc. 2. 9. W. P(C) No. 10343 of 2023 is also filed by KCPA, seeking a declaration that the players sponsored by the petitioner Association alone are entitled to grace marks for the purpose of admission/employment, etc. th 3. CPAK – the 5 respondent in W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 has filed W. P(C) No. 30792 of 2023, seeking to challenge the order issued by the Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the appeal filed by it against the decision of the Sports Council.
It has also sought for cancelling the recognition of KCPA through this writ petition. The contention raised is essentially to the effect that the Appellate Tribunal did not consider the fact that KCPA was disaffiliated from the National Federation and that under the Sports Act, the withdrawal of the affiliation by the National W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 Federation is a reason for withdrawal of recognition, that various documents produced by the petitioners were not considered by the Sports Council while refusing the registration under the Sports Act, that some of the requirements stated to have not been complied with were post-recognition requirement, etc. 4. I have heard Sri. R. Renjith, the learned counsel for KCPA, Sri. Sumeet Singh Shokeen, the learned counsel for the National Federation, Sri. Arun Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner (CPAK) in W. P(C) No. 30792 of 2023, Sri. Vishnu representing Smt.
Latha Anand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Sports Council and Sri. E. G. Gorden, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the State. 5. Sri. R. Renjith, the learned counsel for KCPA, would contend that: i. It was the only Association in Kerala to represent Cycle Polo at the National Level. It has been affiliated with the National Federation since 1970 and registered as per Ext. P2 certificate of registration. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 ii. Though, the petitioner was disaffiliated from the National Federation in 2015, the disaffiliation was challenged before this Court and later before the Apex Court. The matter was not finally decided only because the National Federation themselves were disaffiliated in the meantime, on account of which KCPA was permitted to seek any other relief in accordance with law. iii.
The Sports Council considered the matter on that basis, leading to the issue of an order, by which it was decided to continue with the registration of KCPA and rejected the registration sought for by the CPAK. iv. The appeal filed by the CPAK was also rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. v. The Sports Council has categorically found that the various documents required for seeking registration under the Act were not admittedly produced by the CPAK. vi. In the light of the afore, he would contend that W. P(C) Nos. 5997 and 10343 of 2023 may be allowed. 5. 1. Per contra, Sri. Shokeen, the learned counsel for the National Federation would contend that: i. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge the disaffiliation since the matter is already decided against it in the earlier round of litigation/s. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 ii.
Based on the disaffiliation during 2015, an ad hoc committee was constituted to manage the petitioner's affairs and the Sports Council also recognized the said ad hoc committee. iii. The CPAK was, in the meantime, affiliated by the National Federation and the said affiliation continues even as on date. iv. With reference to the orders issued by the Sports Council and the appellate order in the appeal filed by CPAK, he would contend that the provisions of the State Act are not binding on the National Federation. v. He relies on the provisions of Section 31A(4) of the Sports Act to contend that once the recognition of an organisation is cancelled, the State Council has to consult the Central Federation. vi. He relies on the judgment of this Court in W. A. No. 189 of 2020 to contend that once disaffiliation is effected by the National Federation, the de-recognition under the Sports Act is automatic. 5. 2. Sri. Arun Babu, the learned counsel for CPAK – the petitioner in W. P(C) No.
30792 of 2023, would contend that: i. CPAK alone has an affiliation with the National Federation. No. 5997 of 2023 con. cases 2025:KER:30867 It was incumbent on the part of the Sports Council to de-recognise KCPA in view of the disaffiliation by the National Federation. In support of the said submission, he relies on the judgment dated 29. 10. 2015 in W. P(C) No. 27686 of 2015. The Sports Council also accepts the importance of affiliation by the National Federation, in paragraph 7 of their counter affidavit. The finding in Ext. P11 order of the Sports Council as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, as regards the insufficiency of the required documents for registration under the Sports Act, is without justification and arbitrary in view of Ext. P10 letter submitted by CPAK to the Sports Council on 13. 07. 2022. He adds that the afore letter and its contents have not been considered by the Sports Council while issuing Ext. P11 order.
He contends that no opportunity for curing defects, if any, is extended by the Sports Council. With reference to Ext. P13 series of documents, he contends that the various documents required under the provisions of Section 31(1A) of the Sports Act are available with the petitioner. He relies on the judgment of this Court in W. A. No. 2240 of 2015, to contend that KCPA admits the disaffiliation by the W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 National Federation and would add that as against the disaffiliation, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the civil court as held by this Court in W. P(C) No. 2720 of 2013. 5. 3. Sri. Vishnu, on behalf of the Sports Council, would contend that: i. Insofar as there is no national legislation with respect to sports, the Kerala Sports Act, 2000 would prevail and the National Federation is to bow down to the proceedings issued under the State Act. ii.
He would contend that insofar as Section 31A(1) and (2) only uses the word “may’, there is no mandatory requirement for the de-recognition of an Association with reference to the derecognition by the National Federation. iii. With reference to Section 31A(4), he contends that the State Council only needs to “consult” the National Federation, in the circumstances stated therein, for the purpose of “conducting championships”. iv. He would contend that the judgment in W. A. No. 189 of 2020 cannot be considered to be a binding precedent, insofar as the question as to whether the State Council is required to mandatorily de-recognize an Association with reference to W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 disaffiliation by the National Federation has not been specifically considered or answered. 6. I have considered the rival submissions raised as above as well as the connected records. 7. The following points arise for consideration in these writ petitions: i.
Can a writ be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the National Federation, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand? ii. Is the National Federation bound by the proceedings/orders issued under the provisions of the Kerala Sports Act, 2020? iii. Is CPAK (petitioner in W. P(C) No. 30792 of 2023) entitled to registration under the Kerala Sports Act, 2020? 8. The first issue arising for consideration, as noticed earlier is with reference to the maintainability of the writ petitions. The issue arises for consideration, especially in the light of the prayers in W. P. (C) No. 5997 of 2023 filed by KCPA, which are as under: th i. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the 4 respondent to grant affiliation (renewal) to the petitioner W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 Association at the earliest, duly taking into account Exhibits P4, P8 and P9. th ii.
Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the 4 th respondent to disaffiliate the 5 respondent. th iii. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the 6 th respondent not to extend any sort of assistance to the 5 respondent Association. Therefore, KCPA seeks appropriate directions to the National Federation to grant affiliation (renewal) to it on the basis of the orders issued by the Sports Council as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. It also seeks a direction to the National Federation to disaffiliate the CPAK as well as further direction to the National Federation not to extend any assistance to CPAK. 8. 1. The Apex Court in BCCI v.
Cricket Association of Bihar [(2015) 3 SCC 251], has held though BCCI is an autonomous, non-governmental private body and is not financially, functionally or administratively dominated or under the control of the Government so as to bring it within the expression “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, insofar as the said body discharges various public functions relating to cricket in India, almost like a monopoly, the Board is W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is with reference to the afore principles that Sri. Renjith, the learned counsel appearing for KCPA, contends that the petitioner is justified in seeking the reliefs as noticed earlier. 8. 2. However, I notice that as early as 2015, the question arose before this Court as to whether a writ petition would lie against the National Federation when there were disputes with reference to the office bearers of KCPA.
A learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 10596 of 2013 and connected cases as per judgment dated 22. 01. 2014 held that “it is also doubtful as to whether a writ petition would lie against the Cycle Polo Federation of India which is only a society…………………”. True, the said judgment was rendered without noticing the judgment of the Apex Court in BCCI (supra). However, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 185 of 2014 and connected cases. A Division Bench of this Court by a judgment W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 dated 13. 02.
2015 took note of the judgment of the Apex Court in BCCI (Supra) and also the subsequent developments by which KCPA stood disaffiliated by the National Federation, finding as under: “Whether the disaffiliation is proper or not under the factual circumstances involved in the matter, are not matters which are to be settled by this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, …………. We are of the view that KCPA will have to challenge the action of National Federation in disaffiliating them in appropriate proceedings, which cannot be decided by this Court……………” Finding thus, the appeal was disposed of permitting the KCPA to approach the “appropriate forum” to challenge the disaffiliation. 8. 3. Even on the face of the afore, W. P(C) No. 7030 of 2015 came to be filed by KCPA seeking to challenge the disaffiliation by the National Federation. A learned Single Judge of this Court, as per judgment dated 12. 10.
2015, noticed that “the affiliation to the National Federation is governed by the Memorandum of Association of the National Federation" and formulated the following points for consideration:- “6. Thus, in the light of the facts as above, the following points W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 arise for consideration: i. whether the writ petitions are maintainable and, ii. whether disaffiliation of the KCPA by the National Federation warrants interference by this Court. ” The Court thereafter noticed the judgment of the Division Bench in WA No. 185 of 2014 (supra) as also the arguments raised on behalf of KCPA with reference to various clauses of the Guidelines for Recognition of National Federation under the Sports Code, as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in BCCI (supra), finding as under: “12. Affiliation and disaffiliation is purely a matter to be worked out within the bylaw of the National Federation.
Admittedly, the KPCA and National Federation are formed as Societies under the Societies Registration Act applicable in the State of their Registration. Therefore, unless pervasive or dominant State control is established over the Society by the State, the Society cannot be termed as other Authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. …………… 14. The judgment in BCCI's case [(2015) (1) SCC 608] has no relevance in the context of issues before this Court. The judgment, clearly laid down the law to determine State function by a private entity. The decision emphasises on functional test to determine functions as public functions. As noted above, affiliation or disaffiliation is purely to be worked out within the scheme of the bylaw. Neither the bylaw has any statutory character nor the W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 National Federation is a statutory Authority. 15.
Thus, it has to be concluded that the challenge regarding disaffiliation by the National Federation of a State affiliate, is not maintainable invoking writ jurisdiction. …………… 18. This Court is of the view that unless the dispute regarding rival claims relating to represent the Association is settled by any competent court or the Tribunal as the case may be, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition No. 15589/2015. ” The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge as above was under challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 2240 of 2015 and as per judgment dated 14. 10. 2015, the Division Bench found as under: “6. The fact remains that the petitioner Association had been disaffiliated from the Federation. Once it is disaffiliated, it cannot claim any right to formation of any team and the said team should be sent for National Championships. We have already indicated in the common judgment in W. A. Nos.
185 & 186 of 2014 that the appellants will be at liberty to challenge the disaffiliation by approaching appropriate Forum and no steps had been taken by the appellants so far. Therefore, the fact remains that the disaffiliation still remains and the petitioner Association has no affiliation to National Federation. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, it is pertinent to note that the present challenge to Exts. P11 and P12 has already been considered by us in the earlier writ appeals. ” W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 Finding thus, the appeal stood rejected. 8. 4. It is also to be noticed that though KCPA challenged the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, by filing SLP (C) No. 2068 of 2016, by an order dated 13. 04. 2017, the Apex Court disposed of the same finding as under: “Mr. P. S.
Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, states that Cycle Polo Federation of India, against whom the relief has been sought by the petitioner- Association, has itself been disaffiliated. In view of this development, the relief sought in the special leave petitions cannot be granted. It is made clear that above order will not stand in the way of the petitioner-Association for seeking any other relief in accordance with law. The special leave petitions are accordingly disposed of. ” It is in the light of the afore, that the question that is formulated as above, is to be appreciated. 8. 5. This Court notices from all the above that:-i. It has been categorically held by this Court on more than one occasion that a writ under Article 226 would not lie against the National Federation. ii. The affiliation/disaffiliation by the National Federation is with reference to their Memorandum of Association. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 iii. In the light of the afore, no writ can be issued against the National Federation, especially with reference to the disaffiliation of a State Association by the National Federation. iv. It is for KCPA to vent out its grievance “in accordance with the law” Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is for the KCPA to challenge the disaffiliation in accordance with the law before the appropriate forum, as held by the various Benches of this Court and by the Apex Court. I also take note of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P(C) No. 27276 of 2013 dated 28. 10. 2013, as per which this Court held that the challenge against disaffiliation of the Association (Ernakulam District Roller Skating Association) by the State Association, is not maintainable and that the party has to approach the competent civil court. 8. 6. Therefore, I hold that KCPA would not be entitled to maintain W. P. (C) No. 5997 of 2023 in the light of the afore.
I am of the opinion that the mere reference to the order issued by the W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 Sports Council as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal is also not going to make any difference as regards the maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the afore discussion. 9. The second issue arising for consideration, as noticed earlier is as to whether the National Federation is bound to act on the basis of the orders issued by the Sports Council as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The afore issues arise for consideration, with reference to the provisions of:-i. Kerala Sports Act, 2020 ii. Kerala Sports Rules, 2008 iii. Grant-in-aid Regulations, 2013 framed under the provisions of the Sports Act, by the Sports Council. iv. National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, framed by the Government of India.
In this connection, it is worthwhile to notice that “sports” is falling under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India under List II, Entry 33. In other words, sports is falling under the State List and it is on that basis, the Sports Act is enacted by the State Legislature. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 9. 1. The preamble to the Sports Act makes it clear that the same is enacted for “augmenting the athletic efficiency in the State”. The Act only extends to the whole State of Kerala. Sub-section (1) of Section 31 under Chapter V of the Sports Act provides for the registration of a “Sports Organisation”. 9. 2. Section 31(1A) of the Sports Act provides for the required qualifications and compliances for registration under the Act. Section 31A provides for the withdrawal/suspension of a Sports Organisation recognized under Section 31. Section 31A(1)(i) read as under: “31A(1) Withdrawal or suspension of recognition of Sports Organisations.
– (1) The State Sports Council may, if any of the following irregularities are found out in the activities of a recognised Sports Organisation, until a complete and comprehensive enquiry is made, suspend the recognition of that Sports Organisation, as an interim measure. …………… (i) If the affiliation of a State Organisation is suspended by the National Association or Federation concerned. ” (Underlining supplied) Thus, the Sports Act provides for the suspension of recognition of a Sports Organisation, with reference to the suspension or disaffiliation by the National Federation. Sub-section (2) of W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 Section 31A thereto is also relevant and the same to the extent relevant herein reads as under: “(2) The State Sports Council may, after giving the Sports Organisation an opportunity of being heard, withdraw its recognition on any of the following grounds, namely:- …………… (c)if the concerned National Association or Federation concerned has perpetually cancelled the recognition or nullified the affiliation of the State Organisation. ” (Underlining supplied) Thus, the statute further provides for the withdrawal of the recognition upon perpetual disaffiliation by the National Federation of a State Association. 9. 3. Section 31A(4) has also be noticed and the same reads as under: "(4) If the recognition of any organisation is cancelled under this section, the State Sports Council may organise District level and State level competitions of athletic items concerned, in consultation with the Central Federation of such organisation in the manner as may be prescribed.
" As against the above, the provisions of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'National Code') at Clause 3. 10 states as under: “3. 10. At the National level, there will be only one recognised federation for each discipline of sport. Only the duly recognised National Sports Federation would be entitled to financial grants W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 as admissible. Only one State/UT Association from each State/UT shall be admitted as a member of the Federation, provided it has a minimum of 50% of the District level Associations affiliated to it. Any organisation of an all India standing and connected with the Sport may be given the status as that of a State or that of a U. T. and admitted as affiliated Member.
Other categories of membership may also be given, but while each affiliated State/UT Unit shall have a right to cast vote in the General Body Meetings, no other class of Member(s) shall have any right to vote, in the Federation's meetings. While granting recognition/affiliation to a State UT Association, the National Federation should take into consideration the representative character of the State/UT Association so as to ensure that only truly representative body of the game gets the recognition/affiliation. ” (Underlining supplied) 9. 4. As already noticed, the Sports Act is enacted by the State Legislature with reference to the powers conferred on it under Entry 33 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. This Act applies only to the whole of the State of Kerala. 9. 5. The National Federation, as noticed earlier, is effecting affiliation/disaffiliation with reference to its Memorandum of Association.
Even on the face of the afore, the provisions of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 has W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 application, as regards the National Federation. As already noticed, under Clause 3. 10 of the National Code, there can only be one recognised Federation at the National Level for a sports discipline. Likewise, only one State Association from a State can be admitted as the member of the National Federation, provided, it has minimum of 50% of the District Level Associations affiliated to it. The Clause further cautions that while granting recognition/affiliation to the State Association, the National Federation is to consider the representative character of a State Association so as to ensure that only a truly representative body of the game gets the affiliation. Therefore, ultimately it is for the National Federation to see as to whether the State Association is one having a representative character as regards the State.
Therefore, in the case at hand, the representative character of KCPA or for that matter CPAK, is to be taken into account by the National Federation. It is at this juncture the provisions of the Sports Act, gains significance. The Sports Act, as already noticed, under Chapter V provides for the registration of the W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 Sports Organisation. The Sports Act and the Rules made thereunder requires certain qualifications/compliances for obtaining registration under the Sports Act. As in the National Code, the State Act also provides that only one registered organisation can be there with respect to a sports discipline in the State, under Section 31(1A)(ix).
In the case at hand, the Sports Council has considered the provisions of Section 31 and 31A read along with the relevant provisions of the Rules made thereunder and have found that it is KCPA, which can be considered to be having a truly representative character with respect to the sports of Cycle Polo in the State of Kerala. When that be so, it can only be held that the findings regarding the representative character, with reference to the provisions of Clause 3. 10 of the National Code, can only be with reference to the provisions of the Sports Act under which a registration is provided to the Sports Organisation as regards the particular State is concerned. Therefore, to that extent, this Court holds that the National Federation is bound by the proceedings/orders W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 issued under the provisions of the Sports Act, though as already held, no writ can be issued against the National Federation. 10.
The last issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether CPAK is entitled for registration under the provisions of the Sports Act. 10. 1. As already noticed, CPAK sought for registration under the Sports Act and the Rules from the Sports Council. The registration of an organisation is laid down under the provisions of Chapter V of the Sports Act. The provisions under Chapter V as well as Rule 56 of the Sports Rules provides for certain pre-conditions for obtaining registration under the statute. It is with reference to the afore provisions that the Sports Council considered the application for registration filed by CPAK while issuing Ext. P4 order in W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023, produced as Ext. P11 in W. P(C) No. 30792 of 2023 filed by CPAK. While issuing the said order, the Sports Council, as already noticed, found that CPAK has not produced majority of the required documents under the provisions of Section 31(1A) of the Sports Act. The W. P(C) No.
5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 afore finding has already been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal filed by CPAK. 10. 2. However, CPAK has a contention to the effect that findings contained in the orders of the Sports Council, as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, do not appear to be the correct one. 10. 3. Sri. Arun Babu, the learned counsel for CPAK has placed considerable reliance on Ext. P10 communication dated 13. 07. 2022 addressed by CPAK to the Sports Council to contend that the required documents were already produced on 13. 07. 2022 before the Sports Council. He would add that it is without taking into account the production of those additional documents that the impugned order has been issued by the Sports Council and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. 10. 4. I have considered the submissions made as above. 10. 5. True, Ext. P10 communication dated 13. 07. 2022 shows that some additional documents (6 Nos.
) have been provided by CPAK to the Secretary to the Sports Council. In the W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 th order issued by the Sports Council in the 4 page, specific reference has also been made to the afore communication and it is even thereafter that the Sports Council categorically found that the required details have not been produced by CPAK. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by Sri. Arun Babu, as above, is only to be recorded and rejected. 10. 6. Even on the face of the afore, since the learned counsel Sri. Arun Babu would empathetically contend that the required documents have been produced by CPAK with specific reference to Ext. P13 series of documents produced along with the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to consider the question with specific reference to the requirements under the Sports Act.
This is all the more required, insofar as against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, no further appeal/remedy is provided under the Sports Act. 10. 7. As already noticed, Section 31(1A) of the Sports Act, read along with the provisions of Rule 56 of the Sports Rules, provides for an organisation to comply with the requirements W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 thereunder, so as to seek registration under the provisions of the Sports Act and the Rules. 10. 8. The Sports Council, in its order, has categorically found that the required documents, as per various clauses under Section 31(1A), have not been produced by the petitioner. The Tribunal has also confirmed the said finding. Apart from all that, this Court has already held that the National Federation is bound by the proceedings/orders issued under the Sports Act. There is no dispute that KCPA was admittedly registered under the Sports Act.
There can only be one Association having recognition under the Sports Act as already noticed. When the recognition of KCPA was valid, and it is found that there is no requirement to de-recognise it, there was no scope for considering a separate application for recognition by CPAK. 10. 9. It is at this juncture, the provisions of Section 31A, of the Sports Act noticed earlier arise for consideration. While sub-section (1) of Section 31A thereto provides for suspension of the recognition of the Sports Organisation in question, Sub-section W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 (2) provides for the withdrawal of the recognition. But both the above sub-sections only provides that the Sports Council “may” suspend or withdraw the recognition. It does not provide for “mandatory” suspension/withdrawal of recognition.
It is also worthwhile to notice that the Sports Act under Section 31(1A) requiring registration, used the word “shall” with reference to the requirement for producing the documents in support of the application for registration. However, with respect to suspension/withdrawal the word used is “may”. In other words, the legislature has consciously not made the above provisions entitling for suspension/withdrawal of recognition mandatorily to be followed. Therefore, CPAK may not be justified in placing reliance on the provisions of 31A and contending that the recognition of KCPA is required to be withdrawn in the light of the disaffiliation by the National Federation. 10. 10. This Court is of the further opinion that provisions of Section 31A have to be read in toto, in which event it would show that the suspension/cancellation is with reference to W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 various allegations against the organisation, which the organisation is entitled to explain before the Sports Council. The fact regarding the requirement to conduct an enquiry is also made clear under Section 31A(1). 10. 11. At this juncture, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 189 of 2020 dated 04. 02. 2020, relied on by the CPAK and the National Federation to contend that once there is a disaffiliation by the National Federation, the Sports Council has to de-recognize the Association, is to be noticed. True, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, this Court has held that: “If the affiliation of a State Organisation is suspended by the National Association or Federation concerned, the State Sports Council is duty bound to suspend the recognition of that sports organisation as an interim measure.
So also if the concerned National Association or Federation concerned, has perpetually cancelled the recognition or nullified the affiliation of the State Organisation, then the Sports Council is duty bound to withdraw its recognition. ” However, this Court notices that the afore judgment has been rendered without taking note of the provisions of Section 31A of the Sports Act in comparison to the other provisions. In fact, a W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 reading of the judgment would also show that either party has not raised the question as regards the directory/mandatory nature of the provisions. In such circumstances, the judgment of the Division Bench, cited on behalf of the respondents as above, cannot be considered to be a binding precedent as regards the mandatory nature of suspension/withdrawal of recognition. In this connection, this Court draws support from the judgment of the Apex Court in Secundrabad Club and Ors. C. I. T -V and Ors.
[(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1004], wherein, the Apex Court has held as under: “18. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of transactions forming part of daily affairs. Thus, what is binding in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution is the ratio of the judgment and as already noted, the ratio decidendi of a judgment is the reason assigned in support of the conclusion. The reasoning of a judgment can be discerned only upon reading of a judgment in its entirety and the same has to be culled out thereafter. The ratio of the case has to be deduced from the facts involved in the case and the particular provision(s) of law which the court has applied or interpreted and the decision has to be read in the context of the particular statutory provisions involved in the W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 matter. Thus, an order made merely to dispose of the case cannot have the value or effect of a binding precedent. 19. What is binding, therefore, is the principle underlying a decision which must be discerned in the context of the question(s) involved in that case from which the decision takes its colour. In a subsequent case, a decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide. Therefore, the context or the question, while considering which, a judgment has been rendered assumes significance. 20. As against the ratio decidendi of a judgment, an obiter dictum is an observation by a court on a legal question which may not be necessary for the decision pronounced by the court. However, the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court is binding Under Article 141 to the extent of the observations on points raised and decided by the Court in a case.
Although the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, it has only persuasive authority as far as the Supreme Court itself is concerned. 21. In the context of understanding a judgment, it is well settled that the words used in a judgment are not to be interpreted as those of a statute. This is because the words used in a judgment should be rendered and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally. Further, a decision is not an authority for what can be read into it by implication or by assigning an assumed intention of the judges and inferring from it a proposition of law which the judges have not specifically or expressly laid down in the pronouncement. In other words, the decision is an authority for what is specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. ” As found by the Apex Court, the judgment of the Division Bench W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con.
cases 2025:KER:30867 referred to above cannot be considered as a binding precedent. This is especially so when it is already noticed that the Division Bench was not called upon to consider the question of the mandatory nature of the provision. Hence, in my opinion, the judgment in W. A. No. 189 of 2020 would not come to the rescue of CPAK or the National Federation. 10. 12. On the whole, I am of the opinion that CPAK is not entitled to registration under the Sports Act. Therefore, W. P(C)No. 30792 of 2023 is only to be dismissed. In the result, these writ petitions would stand disposed of as under:-i. W. P(C)No. 5997 of 2023, filed by KCPA, would stand dismissed. ii. W. P(C)No. 10343 of 2023 filed by KCPA would stand allowed holding that players sponsored by the petitioner therein would be entitled to the grace mark for admission/employment. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 iii. W. P(C)No. 30792 of 2023, filed by CPAK, would stand dismissed. Sd/- HARISANKAR V.
MENON, JUDGE ln No. 5997 of 2023 2025:KER:30867 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10343/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AFFILATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S ASSOCIATION DT. 30. 7. 1970. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 31. 10. 1990 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 23. 2. 2022 IN WPC NO. 28433/2018. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25. 7. 2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10. 11. 2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 28587/2022. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11. 1. 2023 PASSED BY THE KERALA SPORTS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 3/2022. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. KSSC/C1/5231/2018 DT. 21. 11. 2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE OBSERVER. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3. 12. 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION LIST PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION AS PER THE STATUTE. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 15. 12. 2022 IN WPC NO. 39313/2022. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 20. 2. 2023 IN CONTEMPT CASE(CIVIL) NO. 2657/2022 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18. 3. 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. No. 5997 of 2023 2025:KER:30867 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30792/2023 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. EKM/TC/153/2016 DATED 02. 03. 2016 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED UNDER ACT XII OF 1955 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFILIATION CERTIFICATE DATED 01. 05. 2018 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RECOGNITION CERTIFICATE DATED 21. 05.
2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 3RD RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RECOGNITION CERTIFICATE DATED 27. 04. 2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 3RD RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3(A). TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. CPFI/5/2015 DATED 15. 01. 2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. KSSC/C1/5231/2018 DATED 04. 09. 2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26. 09. 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. KSSC/C1/5231/2018 DATED 31. 01. 2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P7. No.
5997 of 2023 2025:KER:30867 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23. 02. 2022 IN WPC NOS. 28433 OF 2018; 3107 OF 2020 AND 8881 OF 2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. KSSC/C1/523/2018 DATED 25. 06. 2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13. 07. 2022 (WITHOUT DOCUMENTS) SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. KSSC. /C1/5231/2018 DATED 25. 07. 2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT – KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL IN WPC 3107 OF 2020 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION OF KERALA IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13.
TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(B). TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(C). TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET ETC IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED DETAILS OF THE COMPETITIONS HELD IN STATE / DISTRICT FOR THE No. 5997 of 2023 2025:KER:30867 YEARS BETWEEN 2016 TO 2018 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(E). TRUE COPY OF THE ADDRESS AND DETAILS OF DISTRICT ASSOCIATIONS AFFILIATED TO 1ST PETITIONER IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(F). TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF 1ST PETITIONER WHO ARE SPORTS PERSONS IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(G).
TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P13(H). TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08. 08. 2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-08-2022 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P15. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P16. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/01/2023 IN APPEAL NO. 3/2022 BEFORE THE KERALA SPORTS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND THE SAME MAY BE MARKED AS EXHIBIT P17. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION DATED 30. 07. 1970. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ON 31. 10.
1990 IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. W. P(C) No. 5997 of 2023 and con. cases 2025:KER:30867 EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT NO. KSSC/A3/0226/13 DATED 25. 4. 2013. EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 1741/A2/2013/SYD DATED 28. 5. 2013. EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KSSC/A3/0200/13 DATED 11. 6. 2013. EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 10. 11. 2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 28587/2022. No. 5997 of 2023 2025:KER:30867 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5997/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION DATED 30. 7. 1970 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 31. 10. 1990 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 23. 2. 2022 IN WPC NO. 28433/2018 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. KSSC/C1/5231/2018 DATED 25.
7. 2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2. 8. 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26. 8. 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 10. 11. 2022 IN WPC NO. 28587/2022 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11. 1. 2023 PASSED BY THE KERALA SPORTS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2022 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15. 12. 2022 IN WPC NO. 39313/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 12. 1. 2023 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO. 2657 OF 2022. No. 5997 of 2023 2025:KER:30867 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR CPFI/FEDERATION CUP/2023-24 DATED 05. 12. 2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 17. 12.
2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18. 12. 2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FEDERATION’S BANK TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 18. 12. 2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FEDERATION ON 17-12-2023 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LIST OF PLAYERS (JUNIOR GIRLS) SELECTED TO THE STATE COACHING CAMP TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LIST OF PLAYERS (SUB JUNIOR GIRLS) SELECTED TO THE STATE COACHING CAMP TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT COUNCIL TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25. 4. 2013 NO.
KSSC/A3/0226/13 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL TO THE GOVERNMENT. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 1741/A2/2013 (SYA) DATED 28. 5. 2013 BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO KERALA STATE SPORTS No. 5997 of 2023 2025:KER:30867 COUNCIL. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. KSSC / A3 / 0200 /13 DT. 11. 6. 2013. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS NO. 25-3/2016-SP-I DT. 21. 2. 2017. TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, APPOINTING SHRI. GEORGE THOMAS, ARJUNA AWARDEE, AS OBSERVER TO THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10-10-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE OBSERVER TO THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL. TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE PUBLISHED FOR THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30. 10. 2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT APPOINTING OBSERVER.
TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DT. NIL BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS/ NOTICE DATED 9. 10. 2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DECLARING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18. 12. 2024 PASSED IN IA NO. 4/2024 IN WP(C) 5997/2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 19. 10. 2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL APPOINTING OBSERVER TO THE STATE CAMP OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION DT. 12. 12. 2024. 2023 2025:KER:30867 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12. 07. 2013 ISSUED BY THE KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL THEREBY APPOINTING OBSERVER A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22. 01. 2014 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN IN W. P(C) NO. 10596 OF 2013. THE JUDGMENT DATED 12. 10. 2015 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W. P(C) NO. 7030 OF 2015. THE JUDGMENT DATED 14. 10. 2015 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W. A NO. 2247 OF 2015.
A COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 01. 10. 2013 A COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA. A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19. 01. 2013 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA. A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10. 04. 2013 ISSUED BY THE KERALA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION. A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06. 07. 2013 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE. A COPY OF THE OBSERVER’S REPORT DATED 19. 07. 2013 ISSUED BY THE OBSERVER OF KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL. THE COPIES OF THE LETTERS DATED 15. 01. 2015 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA. A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21. 01. 2017 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA. A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22. 08. 2016 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL. 2023 2025:KER:30867 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13. 05. 2017 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF THE UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. A COPY OF THE AFFILIATION CERTIFICATE DATED 01. 05.
2018 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA. A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09. 08. 2022 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL. A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30. 03. 2023 ISSUED BY THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL. A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND THE AGM OF THE CYCLE POLO FEDERATION OF INDIA DATED 31. 03. 2013. THE ORDER DATED 13. 04. 2017 PASSED BY APEX COURT IN SLP(C) NO. 2068 OF 2016. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/10/2024RECIVED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FROM 4TH RESPONDENT.
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.