rri

[3300 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO: 35135 OF 202s

Between:

1 Sahebzada Azmath Ali Khan. S/o. Sahebzada Rasheeduddin Aii Khan, Age

about 60 years, Occ: Vice President (in-charge President Deccan Arsenal

Cricket Club)

2 Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club ( Regd. No. 540 of 2014) Affiliated to Hyderabad

Cricket Association, Rep. by its Vice President (iir charge President Deccan

Arsenal Cricket Club) Sahebzada Azmath Ali Khan. Both Olo al 22-7 -382/1,

Purani Haveli, Hyderabad

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary - Youth Services and

Sports, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

2. The Apex Council of Hyderabad Cricket Association, Rep. by Secretary Office

'

at Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad Cricket Association Office at Rajiv

Gandhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hy(erabad.

4. The Hyderabad Cricket Association, Rep. by its Secretary Office at Rajlv

Gandhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad.

...RESPON DE NTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of WRIT

OF MANDAMUS BY COMMAND to declare the inaction of respondents No. 2 to

4 in not permitting the petitioner club to register players to participate in the B

Division 2- day leagues matches knockout, play off any other match or matches

conducted by HCA by replacing them with any existing players registered /

.. PETTTTONER(S)

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

participat':d/ played for the petitioner club as capricious, unlawful, arbitrary,

illegal, malafied vrolative of the rights of the Petitioner Club / General Body

Member under bye- Iaws, Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and

consequontly direct the: Respondents No. 2 to 4 to register players to participate

rn the B Division 2 day leagues matches, knockouts, playoffs or any other

nratch/matches or tournaments conducted by HCA by replacing them with any

existing Jrlayers registered / participated/ played for the petitioner club.

P()tition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affld rvit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

direct rer;pondents No 2 to 4 to register players to participate in the B Division 2-

day leagues matches knockout, play off any other match or matches conducted

by HCA by replacing them with any existing players registered / participated/

played fr;r the petitioner club.

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

the affi(lavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

restrain the respondent No. 2 to 4, directing them not to fix / schedule 2 -Days

leagues including tournament, playoffs, knockouts or any other matches for the

season 2025-26 conducted by HCA without permitting the petitioner club to

change, replace players.

Couns€,1 for the Petitioners: SRI MIR OMER KHAN

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SPORTS

Counsol for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI V.RA"TENDER RAO, SC FOR HCA

The Court made the following: ORDER

lA NO: i OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF'

TELANGANA

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA

WRIT PETITION No. 35135 OF 2025

20.o2.2026

Between:

Sahebzada Azmath, Ali Khan & another

.... Petitioners

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Youth Services & Sports,

Hyderabad and others

.... Respondents

ORDER:

The case of Petitioners is that Petitioner No.2 -

Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club, is an affiliated member club of

Respondent No.4 - Hyderabad Cricket Association. Petitioner

No.2 is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act,

bearing Registration No.54O of 2014. The Hyderabad Cricket

Association is itself a registered association under the A.P.

(Telangana Areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli,

bearing Registration No.2O7 of 1961, governed by its registered

bye-laws. It is stated that the ofhces of Respondent Nos.2 and 3

2

are sittrated at Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, Uppal,

Hyderabad.

1.1. It is contended that Respondent No.2 is the Apex

Council/Managing Committee of the Hyderabad Cricket

Association represented by its Secretar5r, and Respondent No.3

is the (lhief Executive OIIicer of Respondent No.4 Association.

Petitiorer No.2 is a General Body Member club of the

Hyderabad Cricket Association and has been regularly

particiJrating in league matches, knockouts, Annua-l General

Meetinlls, Special General Meetings and aII other tournaments,

a-{fairs, meetings, functions, activities and matches conducted or

organiz:ed by the Hyderabad Cricket Association.

1.2. It is pleaded that owing to repeated interference by

the respondents in the internal management and alfairs of

membt:r clubs, several clubs were constrained to approach this

Court by fiiing writ petitions against Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

This ()ourt, by orders dated, 28.04.2O23 in WP No.12651 of

2023, dated O1.O8.2O22 in WP Nos.26831 of 2022, 26842 of

2022 and 26840 of 2O22, granted relief to such clubs, thereby

enabling them to secure their rightful opportunities. Petitioners

assert that such judicial intervention demonstrates a pattern of

3

interference by respondents necessitating recourse to writ

lurisdiction.

1.3. [t is also contended, during the league season

2024-25, petitioner club itself was constrained to file WP No.

19252 of 2024, wherein interim direction as prayed for was

granted, thereby permitting petitioner club to participate in two-

day leagues, knockouts, Annual General Meetings or Special

General Meetings, other meetings, functions, activities, matches

and tournaments conducted or organized by the Hyderabad

Cricket Association and the BCCI. The said order was duly

complied with by respondents and the said Writ Petition was

thereafter, closed.

1.4. It is contended that for the season 2025-26,

petitioner club participated in league matches conducted by the

Hyderabad Cricket Association frorn O2.O7.2025 to O2.O9.2025.

Thereafter, no matches were conducted. Though the Hyderabad

Cricket Association informed all clubs through SMS that the

remaining matcheS would be reStheauled, such reSbheduling

occurred after a gap of 43 days. During tlre interregnum of 43

days between the first schedule and the rescheduled matches,

respondents conducted matches for Under-16, Under-19,

4

Under-113 and Ranji categories and selected various teams to

represent the State on behaif of the Hyderabad Cricket

Association. Due lro such selections, players who were not

selecterl lost interest in continuing league participation,

resultirrg in their unavailabilit5i to play or participate in further

match, on behalf of petitioner club.

1.5. Petitioners stated that the Hyderabad Cricket

Associzttion issued Notihcation dated 26.06.2025 for B Division

2-Day lrague Championship 2025-26. As per Rule 3(C)(a) of the

said Notification, each club is permitted to register a maximum

of 18 players and zr minimum of 12 players were required to be

registered on or before 12.O7.2024. As per Rule 3(C)(b),

remaining piayers could be registered up to 24 hours prior to

the match schedule. It is specifically contended that the above

Notification, styled as a tournament structure, was neither

sanctioned by the Apex Council of Respondent No.2 nor

approved by the General Body of Respondent No.4 as required

throug,h an agenda and resolution. Therefore, Petitioners

contend that the said Notification is arbitrar5r, ultra uires,

unenforceable and un-implementable,

5

1.6 Petitioners submit that the following players were

concerned:

(1) Player bearing Registration No.HCAS00865, Sudeep Dhali,

Aadhaar No. 297814469519, was registered;

(ii) Player bearing Registration No.HCAU00O46, Umar Prawez,

Aadhaar No.345141167784, applied for registration, but the

website reflected his status as "verification withheld";

(iii) Player bearing Registration No.HCAM00932, Mohd. Faisal

Alvi, Aadhaar No.521862958019, was registered.

It is pleaded that two registered players, namely Sudeep Dhali

and Mohd. Faisal AIvi, did not participate in arty league matches

and were unavailable after registration. The third player, Umar

Prawez, was not registered and continued to show "verification

withheld". It is asserted that several other players were similarly

disinclined to participate in further matches, rendering

petitioner club absolutely incapacitated, crippled and impaired

from participating in the remaining matches of the season

conducted by respondents.

1.7. Petitioners also state that Rule I to Rule 8 do not

bar replacement of players who are not registered, whose

verification is r.vithheld, or who have not played any matches.

Reliance is placed on Rule 7(c), which provides that any team

6

forfeiting more than two matches shall be removed from the

remaintler of the leagues. Respondents 2 and 3 were not

permitting players to participate, hence, none player {iled Writ

Petition No. 29777 of 2025. By order dated O6.O9.2025, this

Court clirected Respondents 2 to 4 to allow petitioner therein to

apply fi:r private teams as well. It is stated, petitioner club has

no contractuaf binding or enforceable right to compel its players

to par-iicipate in league or other matches. Players may be

unavailable due to examinations, participation in private

tournaments or lack of future selections after the present

matchr:s, thereby losing interest. In such circumstances, refusai

by the Hyderabad Cricket Association to permit replacement of

unwilling or unavailable players, especially when one player's

verificzrtion is withheld and others have not played any matches,

would defeat petitioner's right to participate.

1.8. It is pleaded that petitioner club applied for

replacement of players solely to ensure availability of eleven

player,s to participate in matches, failing which, under Rule 7,

petitioner club would suffer forfeiture. However, stalf, CEO and

the Apex Council neither reflected the players as registered nor

acted upon petitioner's request. It is contended that refusal to

7

allow replacemcnt renders petitioner club crippled and

incapable of participating in competitive matches due to

exigencies beyond its control. Petitioners assert that they

applied to register additional players only to make up the

permissible maximum of 18 players and that petitioner club has

an absolute right and choice to replace players to field a strong

and competitive team.

1.9. It is further pleaded that respondents, by

preventing petitioner club from selecting and managing its own

players, were crippling its vested right to participate in

competitions. Consequently, petitioner club was constrained to

fite Writ Petition No.32177 of 2025 seeking directions to permit

registration and replacement of players for B Division 2-Day

League matches, knockouts, playoffs and other matches. By

order dated 27 .10.2025, interim direction was granted and

recording the submission of respondents that interim order was

implemented, Writ Petition was closed.

1. 10. Petitiohers state that notwithstanding the aforeSaid

orders and the respondents' statement of compliance,

Notilication d,ated 26.O6.2O25 governing the B Division 2-Day

Championship applies uniformly to the entire season, including

8

league 1:hase, knockout matches and championship phase. It is

contencled that respondents themselves have been applying the

said common rules to all matches, including leagues,

knockouts, playoffs and other tournaments conducted by the

Hyderabad Cricket Association.

1.1 1. It is pleaded that when petitioners, pursuant to the

order in Writ Petition No. 32177 of 2025 dated 17. | | .2025,

sought to register and replace players for upcoming matches,

respondents deliberately kept the website inaccessible. When

petitioners approached the staff, they were directed to contact

the CEO rvho contended that the order in Writ Petition No.

32177 of 2025 was conlined to "league" matches and would not

be imolemented for knockouts, playoffs or other matches.

Despitr: the petitioner explaining that the terminolog, used was

part of the Noti{ication d.ated 26.06.2025 and applied uniformly,

the CEO remained adamant and refused to comply. Even

though the Joint Secretary agreed that league season

encompassed league matches, knockouts and playoffs, the CEO

persist.ed in refusing compliance. Petitioners state that if

respondents continue to preclude petitioner club from replacing

players, petitioner's right to participate would stand defeated.

9

The continued inaction in not registering players is asserted to

be capricious, unlawful, arbitrary, illegal and mala fide.

2. Respondent No.4 filed a detailed counter as well as

an additional counter affidavit opposing the Writ Petition. It is

contended that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in

law, as Petitioners have an efficacious and alternate remedy

under the Hyderabad Cricket Association Rules and

Regulations, 2018. Reliance is placed on Rules 40 and 41 of the

said Rules, which provide for adjudication of disputes by an

independent Ombudsman. It is submitted that petitioner, being

an aIliliated club and a generai body member of the Hyderabad

Cricket Association, is mandatorily required to invoke the

dispute resolution mechanism before the Ombudsman instead

of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2.1. It is further contended that as per Rule 41 of the

HCA Rules, 2)la, disputes relating to the sta-ff of the

Association are also required to be referred to the Ombudsman.

Reh-ance is placed on the Minutes of the Apex Council Meeting

dated 08.O8.2025, which expressly record that disputes between

or among the Hyderabad Cricket Association, its members, TTL

franchisees and cricket piayers shall automatically be referred

10

to the Ombudsman. Since petitioner club, admittedly, is an

affiliated member club which had participated in leagues,

knockouts, Annual General Meetings and other tournaments,

responrlents assert that petitioner has a clear and adequate

alternate remedy which has been deliberately bypassed.

2.2. According to respondents, petitioners have

intentionally avoided the Ombudsman mechanism with the sole

objecti.re of preventing adjudication of disputed factual issues,

including player eligibility, registrations, inter-club transfers

and c(rmpliance with tournament regulations, al1 of which

requirr: factual scrutiny and verihcation and cannot be

adjudi:ated in writ proceedings. Respondent No.4 issued the

Notific,a.tion dated 26.06.2025 governing the B-Division 2-Day

Leagut: Championship for 2025-26. The said Notilication lays

down the rules, regulations and guidelines goveming the

condu,rt of the tournament, including player registration,

transft:rs and eligibility. Respondents rely heavily on Clause 3(C)

of the Notif-rcation, which provides general guidelines for player

registration.

2.3. Respondents specifically rely upon Rule 3(C), which

permil-s each club to register a m .imum of 18 players,

ll

mandates that a minimum of 12 players must be registered by

O3.O7 .2025 at 5:OO PM to participate in the first round, and

permits registration of remaining piayers up to 24 hours before

a match. The rule further restricts transfers of players who have

played matches, prohibits transfers between divisions or

formats, and places responsibility on the Club Secretary to

verify player eligibility and domicile status. It is contended that

a plain reading of Rule 3(C) clearly establishes that transfer of

registered players who have played matches is prohibited,

transfers across divisions or formats are impermissible, ald

transfers between divisions are completely barred. In light of

these binding Rules, respondents assert that the relief sought

by petitioners seeking registration and replacement of players at

the knockout stage wholly contrary to the governing regulations

and violates the principle of fairness.

2.4. Respondents submit that the directions sought by

petitioner would compel the Association to permit player

registration wrlhouf urdert,rking mandatory verilication of

documents, determination of whether players are a-lready

registered with other clubs, examination of whether players are

participating in different formats or divisions, and verification of

l2

eligibilily. Such a course, according to the respondents, would

underrr,ine the regulatory framework governing the tournament.

2.5. lt is further contended that petitioner club has

already registered more than the permissible limit of 18 players.

As per the documents appended by petitioners itself, the club

has registered 19

.

players, which is in direct violation of Rule

3(C)(a). Despite having exceeded the permissible limit, petitioner

is now seeking further replacement of players at the knockout

stage. It is stated, petitioner has only produced declaration

forms for two players, namely G. Mohith Raj and D. Joel

Johnsc,n, without producing any documents evidencing their

eligibil;.ty under the Notifrcation dated 26-06.2025- The records

reveal that both these players were earlier registered with

Universal Cricket Club and SN Group Cricket Club respectively,

which are C-Division teams, thereby demonstrating an

imperrnissible attempt to transfer players across divisions.

2.6. According to respondents, the Writ Petition is

riddlecl with inconsistencies and self-contradictions. On the one

hand, petitioner describes Respondent No.4 as a formal and

unnecessary party, on the other hand, seeks substantive reliefs

against the same respondent. Similarly, while challenging the

13

validity of the Notification dated 26.06.2025 as ultra uires and

unenforceable, petitioner simultaneously relies upon the same

notilication to seek relief. It is asserted that allowing new

players to be introduced mid-tournament would seriously

prejudice other teams that have complied with the rules and

deadlines. A-ll the teams prepare strategies arrd combinations

based on the originally registered squads and permitting

replacements at the knockout stage would confer unfa.ir

competitive advantage, disrupt predictability and compromise

the integrity of the competition.

2.7 . It is further contended that registration and

verilication process exists to ensure age compliance, domicile

authenticity and disciplinary oversight. Permitting replacements

without adherence to this process would amount to backdoor

entry of players, weaken administrative discipline and burden

the Association by discriminating against clubs that have acted

in good faith. On merits, respondents deny the allegation that

the inaction eomplained of is arbitrary, unlawful or violative of

Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution. It is contended that

unavailability of players a-nd loss of interest on the part of

l4

certain players cannot be attributed to the Association and is a

consequence of the petitioner club's own decisions.

2.8. It is asserted that selection of players for Under-16,

Under- 19, Under-23 and Ranji teams was based soleiy on

perforrnance and cannot be construed as a cause for player

disinterest. Petitioner's inability to field players is therefore, not

attribu:able to an:r' act or omission of the respondents. It is

specific'ally denied that Rules permit replacement of players in

the m;rnner sought by petitioner. Respondents assert that

petitiorrer failed to demonstrate that players sought to be

registe:ed are unregistered, withheld or have not played aly

matchr:s, and the allegations in this regard are described as

ba-ld and unsubstantiated. lt is denied that refusal to permit

replact:ment defeats petitioner's right to participate. Once

petitio:rers exercised their right to register players at the

comm(:nccment ol' the league, they cannot subsequently seek

replac,:ment of players whom it itself selected and registered.

2.9. Respondents further deny that Writ Petition No.

32177 of 2025 supports petitioner's case. It is contended that

both the interim and final prayers in the said writ petition were

expresisly limited to league matches and did not extend to

15

championship or knockout phases. Therefore, the orders passed

therein cannot be relied upon to claim replacement rights for

knockouts or playoffs. It is contended that the Notification dated

26.06.2025 clearly demarcates league phase, championship

phase and knockout matches, and the earlier interim order

cannot be interpreted to override this structure or permit fresh

registration of players beyond the league phase.

3. In the additional counter-affidavit, respondents

further contend that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for

lack of locus standi. It is asserted that Petitioner No.1 has no

valid authorization to represent Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club.

According to the Association records, the club is owned by Mr.

Moim Patel, and the Writ Petition Iiled by Mr. Sahebzada

AzrnatLr Ali Khan ciaiming to be acting President is without valid

authorization. It is further contended that petitioner club,

having registered players beyond the permitted limit, secured

the last position in the B-Division league matches and is now

attempting to replace a substantial nfmber of players at the

knockout stage to avoid demotion and gain unfair advantage.

3.1. Respondents aJlege mala fides in fiIing the present

Writ Petition, pointing out that while petitioners initially sought

16

replacement of two players, it later sought replacement of ten

players by Memo dated 16.12.2O25, which would effectively

amoun. to changing the entire team at the knockout stage. It is

also a:;serted that certain players sought to be registered,

including Ahmed Khan and Mohammed Samad, were already

registered with Sunshine Cricket Club and Manchester Cricket

Club respectively for the current season, rendering them

ineligible under Ruie 3(C) of the notification. Respondents

reiterat.e that fresh registrations after the league stage are

impernrissible and that players who were not registered for the

season cannot be permitted to directly participate in knockout

matchr:s. It is finally contended that petitioners, having

voluntarily registered its squad in accordalce with the Rules at

the cornmencement of the season, cannot now seek indulgence

from this Court to override the regulatory framework.

4. In the rejoinder frled by Petitioners, all the

allegations, averments and contentions raised in the counter

affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of

Resporrdent No.4 are categorically denied as false, baseless,

conco<:ted and misleading, save and except those expressly

admitted. It is asserted that counters have been filed with an

17

intent to mislead this Court and to scuttle the legitimate rights

of the petitioner club. Petitioners contend that bye-laws of the

Hyderabad Cricket Association have statutory force, having

been framed pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court through Justice R.M. Lodha Committee,

comprising three former Judges of the Supreme Court, namely

Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice R.V.

Raveendran. The recommendations of Lodha Committee were

accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4235

of 2014.

4.1. It is further pleaded that pursuant to the directions

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the orders passed by the

Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in PIL No. 16 of 2Ol7

dated. 12.09.2O18, administrators were appointed to carry out

amendments to the bye-laws of the Hyderabad Cricket

Association. Accordingly, the corrected bye-laws were registered

on L2.12.2OI8 as "Registration of corrected bye-Iaws of HCA". It

is asserted that these byeJaws, having been framed under

judicial supervision, possess binding statutory character. It is

asserted, as per Bye-law No.44 of the Hyderabad Cricket

Association, the Association can sue or be sued only through its

l8

Secretary. The Chief Executive Officer has no authorilr under

the b1'e-laws to depose, file afhdavits or represent the

Associa.tion in judicial proceedings. No resolution of the General

Body or the Apex Council authorizing the CEO to file the

counte:: has been produced. Consequently, counter and

additiona,l counter tried by the CEO are asserted to be

incomf,etent, non est and liable to be ignored.

4.2. With regard to the objection relating to availability

of alter native remedy, Petitioners specifically rely upon Rules 40

and 41 of the bye-laws to contend that Ombudsman mechanism

is intended for disputes inter se members or between members

and the Association. It is asserted that the present grievance

does not involve any inter-member dispute, but pertains to the

failure of the respondents to act in accordance with statutory

byeJa'vs and judicial orders.

4.3. Petitioners submit that the relief sought is a

commi:rnd to enforce compliance with bye-laws and prior judicial

orders and therefore, falls squarely within the jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended

that the Ombudsman mechanism is not attracted in cases

involving violation of statutory bye-laws and constitutional

19

rights. It is contended that the order passed in Writ Petition No.

32177 of 2025 was a consent order, was implemented by the

respondents and was never challenged in Appeal. Consequently,

respondents are estopped from taking a contrary stand in the

present Writ Petition. They assert that principles of res judicata

under Section 11 CPC and estoppel under Section 115 of the

Indian Evidence Act squarely apply.

4.4. Petitioners deny respondents' contention that the

earlier Writ Petition was limited only to league matches. It is

pleaded that Notification dated 26.06.2025 treats league phase,

knockout phase and championship phase as part of one

composite tournament structure, governed by common Rules.

Therefore, the attempt to confine the earlier order to league

matches alone is described as artificial, untenable and contrary

to the record. It is further contended that despite applying the

same notification and rules uniformly for league matches,

knockouts and playoffs, respondents selectively refused to

permit petitioner to implement the earlier ordei for knoCkout

ald playoff matches. Such selective application of rules is

asserted to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

20

4.5. Petitioners speciflcally plead that neither

Responrlent No.2 - Apex Council nor Respondent No.4

Hyderabad Cricket Association, through its Secretary, filed any

counter denying the specific plea that Notihcation dated

26.06.2025 lacks sanction of agenda or resolution of the Apex

Councij or General Body. It is asserted that such non-denial

amounl:s to admission. It is alleged, counter afhdavits filed by

the so<:alled Interim CEO are intended to arm-twist and cripple

petition.er club in order to favour other teams. The Interim CEO

has a ,:lear conflict of interest, having earlier served as Joint

Secretary of a cricket club, and has allegedly intruded into the

administration of the Hyderabad Cricket Association by

suppressing material facts from the Genera-l Body. Under Bye-

law Nc.24, the role of the CEO is strictly administrative and

limited, and the CEO is expressly prohibited from interfering in

cricketing matters. The action of the CEO in interfering with

player registration and team composition are therefore, asserted

to be ultra uires'the byeJaws and void.

4.6. Petitioners further allege that CEO filed false and

misleading allidavits with oblique motives to promote and favour

teams associated vrrith inlluential individuals within the Apex

21

Council. It is pleaded that such conduct is vitiated by bias and

conflict of interest and renders the irnpugned actions illegal.

Denial of replacement of players, despite prior judicial orders

and uniform application of rules for the entire tournament,

amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Denials contained in the

counter afhdavit are described as bald, vague, routine and

untenable.

4.7. Petitioners assert that the core contention raised by

respondents, namely that the interim and final prayers in WP

No.32177 of 2025 were limited to league matches, is factually

and legally incorrect. It is pleaded that legality of Rule 3(C) itself

was in issue and was never denied by the competent

authorities. The Interim CEO, it is contended, cannot transgress

the authority of the Secretary or reinterpret judiciai orders to

suit his convenience. For a1l the aforesaid reasons, Petitioners

reiterate that counter affidavits Iiled by Respondent No.4 do not

disclose any valid ground for denial of relief.

5 Heard Sri Mir Omer Khan, learned counsel for

petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Sports on behalf of

Respondent No.l and Sri V. Rajender Rao, learned Standing

Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4.

22

6. At the outset, it is not in dispute that Petitioner

No.2 is an affiliated General Body Member of the Hyderabad

Cricket Association and has been participating in the B Division

2-Day League Championship for the season 2025-26. It is

equally undisputed ttrat the tournament in question is governed

by the Notification dated 26.06.2025 issued by the Hyderabad

Cricket Association and that Rule 3(C) therein regulates player

registre.tion for the said championship. The grievance of

petitior.ers is not a challenge to the Notification dated

26.06.2'.025 per se, but to the manner in which Respondents

have applied the said notilication selectively and inconsistently,

particutarly in refusing to permit replacement or registration of

players for petitioner club, despite circumstances pleaded to be

beyond the control ofthe club.

7 . A significant and determinative feature emerging

from the record is that petitioner club had earlier filed Writ

Petition No. 32177 of 2025 raising same grievance, relating to

same R.ule 3(C), same notification dated 26.06.2025 and same

tournarnent season. By order dated 27.10.2025, this Court

granted interim relief permitting replacement of players.

Respondents, through counsel, represented before this Court

23

that the said order had been implemented and on such

submission, the Writ Petition was closed by order dated

17.tr.2025.

8. Once respondents voluntarily implemented the

interim order and allowed the Writ Petition to be closed without

demur or challenge, they cannot subsequently, be permitted to

approbate and reprobate by adopting a restrictive or artiltcial

interpretation of the order to deny similar relief in respect of

matches conducted under the very same notification forming

part of the same tournament structure. Such conduct offends

settled principles of fairness, consistency and administrative

propriety.

9. The contention of respondents that the earlier order

in Writ Petition No. 32L77 of 2025 was confined only to "league

matches" and did not extend to knockouts or playoffs cannot be

accepted in the factual matrix of the present case. A plain

reading of the Notification dated 26.06. 2025 demonstrates that

league phase, knockout phase and championship phase are

integral components of a single tournament governed by a

common set of rules. Respondents themselves have applied the

said notification uniformly across all phases of the tournament.

10. In such circumstances, the attempt to carve out a

rigid e.nd compartmentalized distinction between "league

matche s" and "knockout matches" solely for the purpose of

denyin5l relief to petitioner club appears artificial and contrived.

Administrative authorities, particularly those discharging public

functio:rs in the realm of sports governance, are expected to act

with cc,nsistency and transparency, and not in a manner that

defeats the legitimate expectations arising from their own

conduc t.

11. The plea raised by respondents regarding

availab ilit5r of an alternative remedy before the Ombudsman

under Rules 40 and 41 of the Hyderabad Cricket Association

Rules ;rnd Regulations, 2018 aiso merits careful scrutiny. While

it is tnre that bye-laws provide for an internal dispute resolution

mechanism, existence of such a remedy does not operate as an

absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly

where the grievance pertains to alleged arbitrariness, violation

of bye-laws having statutory force, and non-compliance with

prior judicial orders.

L2. In the present case, tJre grievalce of petitioner is

not in the nature of a private dispute inter se members or a

25

factual dispute requiring adjudication of rival claims, but relates

to the implementation of tournament rules and prior orders of

this Court. This Court has already exercised jurisdiction in

respect of the same issue in Writ Petition No.32177 of 2025. ln

such circumstances, relegating petitioners to the Ombudsman

would neither be efficacious nor appropriate.

13. The contention regarding the competence ofcounter

filed by the Chief Executive Officer also cannot be lightly

brushed aside. Petitioners have specifically relied upon Bye-law

44, which stipulates that Hyderabad Cricket Association shall

sue or be sued in the name of the Secretary. It is an admitted

position that no counter has been filed by the Secretar5r of the

Association disputing the core factual assertions raised by

petitioners, including the plea regarding lack of sarction of the

Notification by the Apex Council or General Body. While this

Court does not propose to non-suit respondents solely on the

ground of technical incompetence of pleadings, absence of a

categoried denial by

-the competent authority lends weight to

petitioners' contention that material pleas have remained

unanswered. In writ proceedings, particularly where allegations

26

of arbi!:ariness and mala 75de exercise of power are raised, such

omissions assume significance.

L4. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that

Courts ordinarily do not interfere in the internal affairs of

sporting associations or in matters of team selection and

tournarnent administration. However, such restraint is not

absolut e- Where the action of an Association is shown to be

arbitra ry, discriminatory, or violative of its own bye-laws or

constitrtional principles, judicial review is not only permissible

but ne(lessary. The present case does not involve a demand for

wholesale replacement of teams or interference with competitive

integrity in abstract. Petitioners pleaded specifrc circumstances,

including unavailability and non-veri.fication of players, which, if

not ad,lressed, would render petitioner club incapable of fielding

eleven players and expose it to forfeiture under Rule 7(c) of the

very notification relied upon by Respondents.

15. Denial of permission to replace or register players

who have not played any match, in such circumstances, would

effecti rely result in exclusion of petitioner club from the

tourn€unent, not on account of sporting merit, but due to

administrative rigidity and selective application of rules. Such

27

an outcome would defeat the very object of conducting

competitive leagues and would amount to arbitrary cxercise o[

power. Rcsl:ondents' reliancc on the principlc of fairness arld

competitive balance cannot be accepted in isolation, divorced

from the factual context. Fairness is a two-way street. While

cnsuring a level playing field for all teams, the Association is

equally obligated to ensure that its actions do not unfairly

handicap a member club by denying it the mininrum

opportunity to participate, especially whcn earlier judicial

directions to the contrary have been implemented.

16. In the considered view of this Court, the

cumulative effect of respondents conduct namely,

implementation

extend similar

of the earlier order, subsequent rcfusal to

treatment for the same tournament, selective

interpretation of rules, and failure of the competent authority to

controvert material pleas, renders the impugned inaction

arbitrary and unsustainable in law. This Court therefore, holds

that respondents cannot, under the guise of tournament

regulations, selectively deny petiLioner club the opportunity to

register or replace players in accordance with the Notihcation

t

/

2E

dated 26.06.2025, particularly when such denial would result in

forfciture and cxciusion of petitioner club from the tournament.

17. ln the result, the Writ Petition is :rllowed.

Respondents 2 tct 4 are directed to permit petitioner club to

register :rnd replace players, strictly in accordance with the

Notification dated 26.06.2O25, for participation in the remaining

matc 1es of B Division 2-Day League Championship 2025-26,

inclu,ling knockouts and playoffs, subject to fulirllment of

eligibility conditions prescribed under the said Notihcation. No

costs.

18. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if

any s hall stand closed.

-K.BHAVANI SWAMY

ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

8.

PMK

PMK

1 . The Principal Secretary - youth

Services and Sports, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

2 The S:cretary. Apex Coun-cil of Hyderabad Cricket Association, Office at

FaJrv Gandhr tnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Hyderabad Cricket Association Office at Rajiv

C,andhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabid.

4. The Hyderabad Cricket Association, Rep. by its Secretary Office at Rajiv

C andhi lnternational Cricket Stadium, Ubpai, UVaeraOaJ.

5. Cne CC to SRt tVtR OMER KHAN, Advocate [OpUC]

6. Cne CC to SRI V.RAJENDER RAO, SC FOR HCA

[OPUCJ

7. Two CCs to GP FOR SPORTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at

Hyderabad .

[O|.JT]

Two CD Copies,

,W

SECTION OFFICER

\

1

!

!

,I

lr

I

I

I

1

l

i

,,

i

l

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010212026

ORDEFI

WP.No.35135 ot 2025

ALLO'WING THE WRIT PETITION

WITHI]UT COSTS

CG TODAY

I

STATE

2 0 ttB

1$?[

a

o

+

I

t

l.o

lvl'z-o

('

o-