2025 INSC 23

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(HON’BLE VIKRAM NATH, J. AND HON’BLE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.)

M/S THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION

Petitioner

VERSUS

M/S CHARMINAR CRICKET CLUB

Respondent

Slp (Civil) No. 6779 Of 2021 With Slp(C) No. 6819 OF 2021 AND SLP(C) No. 16526 OF 2021 AND SLP(C) No. 16628 OF 202-Decided on 03-01-2025

Civil

Constitution of India, Article 136 – Cricket - Appointment of the Ombudsman and the Ethics Officer - Challenge seeking a declaration that the appointment of the Ombudsman and the Ethics Officer by the Apex Council was not in accordance with the Constitution of the Hyderabad Cricket Association - Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 is pending consideration before another Bench of this Court, where some of the issues involved in the present cases are also being considered – Held that once the issue is raised that the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee which are to be approved/ disapproved in the present case, may be in conflict or not in consonance with the Constitution, Regulations and Guidelines of the BCCI, it would only be appropriate that these matters may be tagged with Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 and heard by the same bench - Registry directed to place the papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders.

(Para 3 to 5)

ORDER

Vikram Nath, J. :- The special leave petitions were filed assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No117 of 2021. Date: 2025.01.03 17:22:40 IST Reason:

2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:

2.1. Respondent No.2 M/s Budding Star Cricket Club instituted a suit before the Civil Court registered as PSROP No.17 of 2020 seeking a declaration that the appointmet of the Ombudsman and the Ethics Officer by the Apex Council was not in accordance with the Constitution of the Hyderabad Cricket Association.

2.2. In the said suit, I.A. No. 674 of 2020 was preferred, in which the Civil Court, while allowing the application, passed an order for suspension of the decision of the Apex Council appointing the Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer during the pendency of the said suit, till its disposal.

2.3. The said order was challenged by way of Civil Revision Petition No.117 of 2021 before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order dated 06.04.2021 allowed the Revision, set aside the order of suspension of the appointment of Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer and I.A. No. 674 of 2020 was dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. Further, the High Court dismissed the suit itself by the impugned order. Assailing the correctness of the same, the present Special Leave Petitions were filed.

2.4. During the pendency of these petitions, various orders were passed and with passsage of time, the scope of these petitions has been widely enlarged.

By an order dated 22.08.2022, this Court appointed a Supervisory Committee under the Chairmanship of retired Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh along with three members which included an IPS Officer being Director General, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Telangana State and Ex-Indian Cricketer and Director of Hyderabad Cricket Academy of Excellence.

2.5. Later on, by an order dated 14.02.2023, this Court directed that the Supervisory Committee will not survive considering the fact that fair and proper elections of the executive body of the Hyderabad Cricket Association were essential. A retired Judge of this Court was appointed as a Single Member Committee to conduct the elections. The elections were held under the supervision of the Single Member Committee. Further the Single Member Committee made certain recommendations to be incorporated in the Constitution of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. When the said report of the Single Member Committee was placed before this Court, a large number of objections were filed by different parties, some of them supporting the recommendations and others objecting to the same on various grounds.

2.6. This Court further passed an order dated 05.12.2023 and prima facie found that the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee were salutory recommendations. However, this Court observed that it would not like to shut out the parties from having their say. Further, as an interim measure, it was directed that the recommendations in the meantime will come into force and be implemented. Thereafter, the matters have been taken up on a number of occasions and arguments were heard on several dates.

3. On 05.12.2024 when the matters were taken up, Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the elected office bearers informed this Court that Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 is pending consideration before another Bench of this Court, where some of the issues involved in the present cases are also being considered.

Further, the said Civil Appeal is dealing with a broader issue relating to the Constitution of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and there is a direction passed therein, based on the guidelines and Constitution approved by this Court, that all States Cricket Associations would have their Constitution in line with the Constitution of the BCCI. It was also submitted by Mr. Singhvi that some of the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee would be in conflict with the Constitution of BCCI and therefore, if the Hyderabad Cricket Association adopts the same, there would be a direct conflict with the directions issued in the said appeal. He thus submitted that the present matters may also be heard with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 so that there are no conflicting views and orders. Further the Regulations, Constitutions, Guidelines of BCCI and that of the State Cricket Associations are in confirmity with each other and as per the judgment and directions of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014. Some of the counsels appearing for the intervenors have supported the submissions made by Mr. Singhvi. Whereas others have opposed and have submitted that this Court may proceed with these matters and there is nothing which may come in conflict with the judgment and directions passed in Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014.

4. Having given our anxious consideration and without going into the merits of the matters, once the issue is raised that the recommendations made by the Single Member Committee which are to be approved/ disapproved in the present case, may be in conflict or not in consonance with the Constitution, Regulations and Guidelines of the BCCI, it would only be appropriate that these matters may be tagged with Civil Appeal No.4235 of 2014 and heard by the same bench.

5. We accordingly direct the Registry to place the papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders.

------