Page 1 of 22

Serial No. 01-03

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 294 of 2026 with Reserved on: 22.09.2026

WP(C) No. 321 of 2026 Pronounced on: 30.10.2026

WP(C) No. 377 of 2026 Uploaded on: 30.10.2026

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

WP(C) No. 294 of 2026

James P.K. Sangma, President

Meghalaya Cricket Association

J.N. Sports Complex, Polo Ground,

Shillong, Meghalaya – 793001 through

his Constituted Attorney Shri. Gurnain

Randhawa …Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

1. Rayanold Kharkamni, Honorary Secretary,

Meghalaya Cricket Association, J.N. Sports

Complex, Polo Ground, Shillong,

Meghalaya – 793001

2. Rajiv Bareh, Vice President, Meghalaya

Cricket Association, J.N. Sports Complex,

Polo Ground, Shillong, Meghalaya – 793001

3. Analdo Mebanphira Swer, Honorary Joint

Secretary, Meghalaya Cricket Association,

J.N. Sports Complex, Polo Ground, Shillong,

Meghalaya – 793001

2026:MLHC:1217

Page 2 of 22

4. Eddystone Shylla, Honorary Treasurer,

Meghalaya Cricket Association, J.N. Sports

Complex, Polo Ground, Shillong,

Meghalaya – 793001

5. Chuba R. Marak, Member Councillor,

Meghalaya Cricket Association, J.N. Sports

Complex, Polo Ground, Shillong,

Meghalaya – 793001

6. The Board of Control for Cricket in India,

4

th

Floor, Cricket Centre, Wankhede Stadium

‘D’ Road, Churchgate, Mumbai,

Maharashtra – 40020

7. Retd. Justice B.D. Agarwal, Ombudsman,

Meghalaya Cricket Association …Respondent(s)

WP(C) No. 321 of 2026

1. Sri Rayonald Kharkamni

Honorary Secretary

Meghalaya Cricket Association

J N Sports Complex,

District: East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya

2. Shri. Rajiv Bareh, Vice-President

Meghalaya Cricket Association

J N Sports Complex,

District: East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya

3. Shri. Eddystone Shylla

Honorary Treasurer

Meghalaya Cricket Association

J N Complex, Polo Ground,

Shillong, Meghalaya – 793001 …Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

1. Shri. James P.K. Sangma

President 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 3 of 22

Meghalaya Cricket Association

J.N Sports Complex

Meghalaya 793001

2. The State of Meghalaya

Represented by its Commissioner and

Secretary, Department of Sports &

Youth Affairs, Govt. of Meghalaya

Shillong …Respondent(s)

WP(C) No. 377 of 2026

1. Shri. Rayonald Kharkamni

Honorary Secretary

Meghalaya Cricket Association

Mawroh, Ri-Bhoi,

Meghalaya 793102 …Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

1. Shri. James P.K. Sangma

President

Meghalaya Cricket Association

J.N. Sports Complex, Polo Ground,

Shillong, Meghalaya

2. State of Meghalaya, Represented by its

Commissioner & Secretary, Department of

Sports & Youth Affair

3. Meghalaya State Commission for Women

Through its Chairperson

Nongrim Road, Laitumkhrah, East

Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya,

Shillong – 793003

4. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)

Represented by its President Shri. Mithun Manhas

Cricket Centre, Wankhede Stadium, ‘D’ Road,

Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra …Respondent(s)

2026:MLHC:1217

Page 4 of 22

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

In WP(C) No. 294 of 2026

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Rao, Sr. Adv. with

Dr. N. Mozika, Sr. Adv.

Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. with

Dr. P.P. Medhi, Adv.

Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.

Mr. W. Dkhar, Adv. (For R 1-5&7)

Mr. S. Khound, Adv.

Ms. G.C. Marboh, Adv. (For R 6).

In WP(C) No. 321 of 2026

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. with

Dr. P.P. Medhi, Adv.

Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.

Mr. W. Dkhar, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Rao, Sr. Adv. with

Dr. N. Mozika, Sr. Adv.

Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.(For R 1)

Mr. S. Khound, Adv.

Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA (For R 2).

In WP(C) No. 377 of 2026

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Pandey, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Rao, Sr. Adv. with

Dr. N. Mozika, Sr. Adv.

Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.(For R 1)

Mr. S. Khound, Adv. 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 5 of 22

Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA (For R 2)

Mr. S. Khound, Adv. with

Ms. G.C. Marboh, Adv. (For R 4).

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press: Yes/No

JUDGMENT:

1. In these series of writ petitions, the subject matter emanates from an

acute institutional breakdown within the Meghalaya Cricket Association

(MCA), most specifically the differences and disputes in the executive

leadership i.e. the President and the Honorary Secretary, dealing with

statutory findings of sexual harassment, institutional coverup and the

question on the appointment and continuance of the Ombudsman. In WP(C)

No. 294 of 2026, the petitioner who is the President has asserted the validity

of the Ombudsman’s appointment and also the legality of the Honorary

Secretary suspension, as a mandatory emergency measure to comply with

the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (POSH), mandate.

In WP(C) No. 321 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 377 of 2026, the Honorary

Secretary as Petitioner, has put a challenge to the Ombudsman’s

appointment, apart from contending that the President lacks the power to 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 6 of 22

unilaterally suspend an elected official without prior Apex Council

concurrence.

2. For the petitioner in WP(C) No. 294 of 2026, and respondent No. 1 in

WP(C) No. 321 of 2026 and WP(C) No. 377 of 2026. Mr. R.S. Rao, learned

Senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Myrchiang, learned counsel for the

petitioner, in his opening arguments has questioned as to whether the

respondents can seek to dislodge an Ombudsman, whose appointment was

approved at the 26

th

Apex Council Meeting, acted upon, communicated to the

BCCI and accepted by the appointee particularly when this Court by order

dated 01.07.2026, had already directed that neither of the parties shall be

allowed to undermine the Ombudsman’s functioning till the next date of

hearing. It is submitted that the records would reflect that a notice dated

03.03.2026, expressly placed the appointment of the Ombudsman before the

26

th

Apex Council Meeting, wherein, the Minutes record a specific decision

of ratification of the appointment of Justice (Retd.) B. D. Agarwal, as

Ombudsman, and for directions to issue an offer letter. The respondents No.

1, 2, 3 and 5 as arrayed in WP(C) No. 294 of 2026, it is submitted were present

and participated in the meeting, and moreover, in their/ respondents writ

petition itself, their presence is acknowledged wherein, the attendance sheet,

as well as, the TA/DA sheet also contains their signatures. Thus he submits,

the allegation that the appointment was forcefully imposed is misplaced, as 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 7 of 22

not only was the decision recorded, but the same was also implemented.

Learned Senior counsel submits that no objection was raised at this stage by

the respondents, who continued to participate in the day-to-day administration

of the association, until it became evident that the Ombudsman was likely to

pass certain orders in light of the decision of the Meghalaya State Commission

for Women(MSCW). It is then contended that the challenge to the

appointment of the Ombudsman and the consequent action are clearly mala

fide, and that a fact which remains is that the person seeking to displace the

Ombudsman’s authority, is himself the subject matter of proceedings before

that Ombudsman. A further submission that has been made is that the

respondent No. 1 himself, had relied upon the Ombudsman mechanism, when

it suited his case, namely in WP(C) No. 648 of 2025, where it had been stated

that the Ombudsman was relied upon as an internal/alternate mechanism for

redressal of disputes, a position he asserts was recorded by this Court in its

order dated 18.12.2025.

3. The learned Senior counsel then submits that the meeting conducted

on 09.05.2026, cannot form a legal basis for placing the Ombudsman’s

appointment in abeyance, inasmuch as, the notice dated 06.05.2026, was

issued without the President concurrence in violation of Rule 18(c)(iv) of the

MCA constitution, which objected to by the President by notice dated

07.05.2026, and that inspite of the order of the Ombudsman dated 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 8 of 22

08.05.2026, for suspension of the notice, the meeting nevertheless proceeded

on 09.05.2026. In this meeting it is submitted, Rule 30(b) of the MCA

constitution was not adhered to, inasmuch as, requirement of at least 5

members including 2, who are not office bearers was not met, and as such,

therefore the purported resolution including the attempt to place the

Ombudsman’s appointment in abeyance cannot be sustained. It is further

argued that the subsequent conduct on 07.09.2026, compounds the problem

as the respondents No. 2-5, conveyed a meeting style as a Requisitioned

Emergent Apex Council Meeting without informing or inviting the

President, and that though the Minutes themselves acknowledged the

pendency of proceedings before this Court, concerning the meeting of

09.05.2026, yet notwithstanding the knowledge proceeded and continued to

act in continuation thereof, even though the Resolutions and consequential

actions were already the subject matter of the interim order dated

01.07.2026. It is then submitted that the respondents by their own conduct

showed that they understood the purport of the interim order dated

01.07.2026, to be subsisting and binding, and as such, their further action

was therefore not dependent upon whether the respondent No. 1, personally

convened attended or signed the proceedings of 07.09.2026. As such he

submits, the meeting of 07.09.2026, cannot be treated as a lawful exercise, 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 9 of 22

and that the conduct of all the persons who participated in the meeting is a

clear and deliberate attempt to obstruct the cause of justice.

4. On the issue of suspension, the learned Senior counsel submits that

the suspension dated 27.06.2026, was an immediate and administrative

measure taken by the President, in the circumstances then prevailing and not

a final adjudication, inasmuch as, the disciplinary issues were then placed

before the Ombudsman on 01.07.2026, and show cause issued thereon on

06.07.2026. The allegation of violation of natural justice, therefore he

submits, is premature, as the respondents have been afforded an opportunity

to answer the allegations before a competent forum. On another aspect with

regard to the allegation of suppression of Articles 3, 18 and 40 of the MCA

constitution, the same has been stoutly denied and the learned Senior counsel

has referred to submissions that have been video recorded by the Court, and

has prayed that a transcript of the same be taken consideration.

5. In conclusion, the learned Senior counsel has reiterated his

submissions that the Ombudsman was validly appointed and the meeting of

09.05.2026, cannot retrospectively erase the appointment, and that the

constitutional process of the association cannot be reduced to a contest of

which meeting is held last, and more importantly, nor can a subsisting order

of this Court be rendered ineffective by the passing of a fresh resolution. The

MCA constitution it is contended must govern, as also the order of this Court, 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 10 of 22

and as such, WP(C) No. 294 of 2026 deserves to be allowed and the writ

petitions filed by the respondents be disallowed by this Court.

6. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Dr. P.P. Medhi,

learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners (Honorary Secretary and two

others) in WP(C) No. 321 of 2026, and Respondents in WP (C) No. 294 of

2026, in reply has submitted that the Respondent No. 1 in his capacity, as

Honorary Secretary of the MCA had issued notices to the members to attend

the 26

th

Apex Council Meeting on 07.03.2026, which was held under the

Chairmanship of the President i.e. the petitioner in WP(C) No. 294 of 2026.

In this meeting he submits, the President forcefully tried to bypass the rules

and guidelines laid down in the Memorandum of Association of the MCA,

and the guidelines of the Lodha Committee recommendations, and proposed

that without holding an Annual General Meeting the Association should

proceed with the appointment of Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Mr. B. D. Agarwal

as the Ombudsman of the MCA, in spite of the objections raised by the

petitioner (Honorary Secretary). This was followed he submits, by the

proposal letter dated 09.03.2026, to Justice (Retd.) Mr. B. D. Agarwal as the

Ombudsman, and that even though they approached the President for

reconsideration of the decision, the same was refused and as such, he as

Honorary Secretary, issued a letter to all the members requesting them to 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 11 of 22

attend an Emergent Apex Council Meeting on 09.05.2026 to discuss the

proposals made in the last Apex Council Meeting.

7. In the said meeting held on 09.05.2026 the Learned Senior counsel

submits that it was decided that Rule 25(b)(vi) and Rule 40 of the

Constitution of the MCA should be followed and that the Ombudsman shall

be appointed at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the MCA, and as no

AGM had been held the proposal of appointment of the Ombudsman by the

Apex Council required reconsideration. In pursuance to this resolution, it is

submitted a letter was then issued on 14.05.2026 to Hon’ble Justice (Retd.)

Mr. B. D. Agarwal apprising him about the decision in the meeting held on

09.05.2026. Thereafter he submits, on a request by the office bearers of

several District Cricket Associations of Meghalaya requesting for convening

of a Special General Meeting, in response thereto, as per the rules, the

petitioner vide letter dated 26.06.2026, then issued a notice for the conduct

of an Emergent Apex Council Meeting on 27.06.2026. In the said meeting

he submits a unanimous decision was taken for convening a Special General

Meeting on 03.07.2026, wherein the issue of appointment of the

Ombudsman would be addressed, but that however after the said meeting on

27.06.2026, the President issued the suspension notice dated 28.06.2026,

suspending the petitioner (Honorary Secretary) by misinterpreting an order

passed by the Meghalaya State Women’s Commission dated 26.06.2026, and 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 12 of 22

further also suspended the proposed Special General Meeting scheduled to

be held on 03.07.2026.

8. It is then contended that a bare reading of the MSCW order dated

26.06.2026, would show that it only contained directions to immediately

comply with the provisions of the POSH Act, and for setting up of an Internal

Complaints Committee (ICC), and nowhere it is mentioned that the

petitioner be suspended. It is further submitted that the important question in

this matter, however is whether the appointment of the Ombudsman is valid,

or in contravention of the Memorandum of Association and Rule 5(a) of the

interpretation clause, wherein Apex Council has been defined and also Rule

12, with regard to the composition and functions of the Governing Body.

The Learned Senior counsel has taken this Court through these provisions

and submits that a conjoint reading, would show that the

President/Respondents never followed the aforementioned provisions in

convening the Emergent Apex Council Meeting on 07.03.2026, for

appointment of the Ombudsman and as such therefore, the calling of a

Special General Meeting by the petitioner vide the notice dated 27.06.2026,

to address the issue of appointment of Ombudsman was perfectly valid.

However he submits, on a misrepresentation this court by order dated

01.07.2026, the said meeting was suspended. 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 13 of 22

9. In this context, the Learned Senior counsel has submitted that the

interim order was passed without taking into consideration the following

material facts namely: -

(a) The Apex Council Meeting held on 07.03.2026, was not

authorised to appoint the Ombudsman, inasmuch as, Rule 25

(b)(vi) and Rule 40(1) mandates that the Ombudsman shall be

appointed at the AGM of the MCA.

(b) The draft of the minutes of the Meeting held on 07.03.2026,

with regard to all the agendas was prepared unilaterally by the

President and that the presence of the Petitioner and other

members in the meeting does not imply the consent for the

official appointment of the Ombudsman who should have been

appointed by the AGM.

10. The Learned Senior counsel has then reiterated his submissions that

the interim order of this court which directed that the Ombudsman continue

to discharge his functions as per the MCA Constitution till the next date was

occasioned, due to the wrong contention of the President that the

Ombudsman was appointed by the Apex Council Meeting held on

07.03.2026. In the landmark decision in the case of BCCI vs. Bihar Cricket

Association (2015) 3 SCC 251, it is submitted that the Supreme Court on the

appointment of an Ombudsman has directed that the appointment was to be 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 14 of 22

at the AGM, for the purpose of providing an independent dispute resolution

mechanism. In the instant case he asserts that the President of the MCA, has

acted arbitrarily in appointing the Ombudsman by illegally ignoring the

mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As such, he submits the

principles of Rule of Law and Due Process have been violated by the

President, who has acted in gross contravention of the rules and regulations

of the MCA, interference is called for by this court and WP(C) No. 294 of

2026, be dismissed.

11. Mr. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 377

of 2026, has submitted that the impugned suspension order suspending the

Petitioner from the office of Honorary Secretary is wholly without

jurisdiction, as the purported reason is the recommendation of the MSCW

(Respondent No. 3 herein) inasmuch as, under Rule 41(b) any complaint

received against a member or administrator, is required to be placed before

the Apex Council which is to examine whether a prima facie case exists. In

the instant case he submits Rule 41(b) has been completely bypassed and the

complaint by the Respondent no. 3, was never placed before the Apex

Council, no show-cause issued or decision or resolution taken to initiate

disciplinary proceedings. The President he submits, acted unilaterally and on

01.07.2026, had also addressed a letter to the Ombudsman seeking initiation

of proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 15 of 22

findings/recommendations of the MSCW, which is contrary to the applicable

rules of the MCA. The action of the President he submits, in exercise of his

powers under clause 18(a) has also acted in excess of jurisdiction as the said

provision, merely empowers the President to exercise general supervision

over the affairs of the association and, in cases of emergency, to take such

measures as may be deemed necessary to safeguard the interest of the

association. It is further submitted, this provision neither expressly nor by

necessary implication confers upon the President any independent authority

to suspend an elected office bearer or to bypass the disciplinary mechanism

under Rule 41(b). Learned counsel concludes by contending that the

impugned suspension order being illegal is liable to be set aside and quashed.

12. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the

materials, the main issues that arise for determination is the validity of the

appointment of the Ombudsman, and whether the Apex Council’s

Ratification of the appointment on 07.03.2026, is sustainable, without

adherence to Rule 40 of the MCA Rules, requiring appointment by the AGM.

Further issue is whether the unilateral suspension of the Honorary Secretary

is valid under the emergency powers exercised by the President by bypassing

Rule 41(b), which outlines the disciplinary proceedings requiring prima facie

findings by the Apex Council. Other points that have arisen for consideration

is the legality of the Special General Meeting notice, and consequent meeting 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 16 of 22

dated 07.09.2026, in the face of interlocutory orders operating, and also the

disputed resignation letter of the Honorary Secretary, brought on record by

MC(WPC) No. 238 of 2026, of his Presidentship from Ri Bhoi District

Cricket Association. In the same Misc. Case, matters of financial

mismanagement, the respondent No. 1’s refusal to execute the bank

signatory resolution, and retention of digital credentials and official email

have also been raised. This Court has also noted the fact that the findings of

the Meghalaya State Commission for Women (MSCW), framed against the

BCCI’s zero tolerance policy, had triggered the current crisis, which has

exposed the failure of the MCA, with regard to the safety and protection of

the female players.

13. On the validity of the Ombudsman’s appointment as noted earlier, the

same which was ratified on 07.03.2026, by the 26

th

Apex Council Meeting,

the records would show that the meeting was held pursuant to a notice dated

03.03.2026, signed by the Honorary Secretary, which placed the subject

matter of appointment of the Ombudsman before the said meeting. The

minutes of the said 26

th

Apex Council Meeting, also specifically records the

decision of the appointment of Ombudsman, and as such, the allegation that

the appointment was forcefully imposed cannot be accepted, at this stage.

14. Another aspect that is relevant and duly noted by this Court, is that in

the earlier round of litigation namely WP(C) No. 648 of 2025, it was 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 17 of 22

recorded that an Ombudsman existed as an alternate dispute forum within

the MCA, and the Honorary Secretary was a party respondent in the said

case, and at that point of time, had not questioned the validity of the said

office. Though, the regulations provide that the appointment of the

Ombudsman is to be by the AGM, as per Rule 25(b)(vi) and Rule 40, thereof,

the Honorary Secretary’s and other members challenge, in the opinion of this

Court is flawed by their own conduct, inasmuch as, they had participated in

the meeting, and further the offer letter dated 09.03.2026, was issued and

accepted by the Ombudsman, whose appointment was also communicated to

the BCCI on 10.03.2026, which was to the knowledge of the Honorary

Secretary and others. The proceedings thereafter, initiated in the meeting

dated 09.05.2026, for placing the Ombudsman’s appointment in abeyance,

also cannot be held to be valid, as the notice dated 06.05.2026, calling for

the same was issued without the President’s concurrence, although Rule

18(c)(iv) of the MCA constitution, requires the same, and it is noted that the

President in this regard had also lodged an objection dated 07.05.2026.

Added to this fact, is that the 09.05.2026 meeting lacked the required

quorum, as per Rule 30(b), which stipulates that at least 2 non-office bearers

be present, whereas, the meeting consisted of only 5 office bearers.

15. This Court by an interim order dated 01.07.2026, passed in WP(C)

No. 294 of 2026, had directed that the Ombudsman continue to discharge his 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 18 of 22

functions in accordance with the MCA Constitution until the next date, and

this interim order is still subsisting. As observed earlier, though the

appointment is strictly not in accordance with the MCA Constitution, the

intervening events however, has compelled this Court to appreciate other

aspects that have to be taken into consideration and therefore, cannot confine

itself only to the clinical challenge made to the Ombudsman’s appointment.

An important aspect in this regard are the grounds put up by the President

who has asserted the validity of the Ombudsman’s appointment and also the

legality of the Honorary Secretary’s suspension, as a mandatory emergency

measure under Rule 18(a) to comply with the POSH mandate as directed by

the MSCW, which had by 2(two) successive orders directed for disciplinary

action, following findings of sexual harassment. This to the mind of the

Court, in the interest of justice and transparency, cannot be ignored, coupled

further with the fact that the BCCI requires State affiliates to maintain a

functional dispute resolution mechanism (Ombudsman) and work place

safety (ICC) framework.

16. In this chain of events, it is therefore, important to note that prior to

the orders of the MSCW, the Honorary Secretary had no quarrel with the

manner of appointment of the Ombudsman, and in fact also endorsed the

same in an earlier writ petition and it is only after the MSCW’s orders that

the challenge materialized. Coming to the impugned suspension of the 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 19 of 22

Honorary Secretary by the President under Rule 18(a) in the considered view

of this Court on examination of the said Rule, which empowers the President

to take all measures in an emergency to safeguard the Association, the action

cannot be said to be arbitrary, but more of an interim administrative measure

and not a final decision. Though Rule 41(b), speaks of final disciplinary

proceedings requiring the Apex Council’s prima facie finding, the

suspension of the Honorary Secretary as an emergency measure, has to be

looked at in the light of the POSH Act, 2013, wherein Section 12 thereof,

mandates immediate steps to be taken by the employer (herein MCA) to

prevent a hostile work environment and provides for a temporary measure to

defuse it while the enquiry is underway. It would not be out of place to

mention that the MSCW’s Order No. 522 dated 26.06.2026, had noted a

deliberate cover up by the Honorary Secretary, of suppression of official

complaints e-mails from December, 2025, and therefore, the President’s duty

of care under Rule 18(a), justifies the interim suspension to protect the

evidence and the complainants, while the formal disciplinary enquiry was

referred to the Ombudsman. This Court therefore, finds that for the reasons

discussed on the accompanying facts, the suspension was a valid interim

measure.

17. On the other issue i.e. the legality of the Special General Meeting

Notice and the 07.09.2026 meeting, without elaborating, suffice it to say that 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 20 of 22

the resolutions arrived at, were taken while stay orders issued by this Court

were in effect. This Court by order dated 01.07.2026, passed in MC(WPC)

No. 194 of 2026, had suspended the respondent’s decision to convene a

meeting on 07.09.2026, which however was not paid heed to, and as such

the said Meeting which was ostensibly held for administrative necessity for

Cricket trials, is nothing but an attempt to subvert the orders of this Court as

the suspension of the Honorary Secretary was revoked and the appointment

of the Ombudsman sought to be by-passed. As such, all resolutions arrived

at in the 07.09.2026 meeting are non-est in law.

18. Coming to the other issues that have arisen which had been brought

on record in MC(WPC) No. 238 of 2026, with regard to the holding of dual

office by the Honorary Secretary as the President of the Ri-Bhoi District

Cricket Association, though an unverified resignation letter dated

22.12.2025, has been produced, this Court will not dwell upon this aspect

except to note that Article 14.5 of the MCA Constitution provides for

mandatory disqualification, if a member of the Apex Council once elected

holds any office in an affiliate member Association. Should the resignation

letter be verified, to be unaccepted and it be established that the Honorary

Secretary continued to exercise executive powers as the Ri-Bhoi District

Cricket Association even after being elected, by operation of Article 14.5 of 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 21 of 22

the MCA Constitution, he would be rendered constitutionally disqualified

from continuing as Honorary Secretary of the MCA.

19. The other issues raised in the said MC(WPC) No. 238 of 2026, with

regard to the Honorary Secretary’s refusal to execute the bank signatory

resolution passed at the 26

th

Apex Council Meeting and his conduct

thereafter, retention of digital credential and the official e-mail account are

also under a cloud of doubt, as executive suspension divests an official of

operational authority, more so, when the suspension order dated 27.06.2026,

had directed for the immediate surrender of all physical and digital

properties, access credentials and records, to the office of the President.

20. In the foregoing circumstances and on the facts of the case and the

discussions made hereinabove, this Court orders as follows: -

i) WP(C) No. 294 of 2026 stands allowed, and the Special

General Meeting Notice dated 27.06.2026, is declared

invalid and the resolutions of the 09.05.2026, and

07.09.2026, are declared illegal and non-est in law.

ii) WP(C) No. 321 of 2026 challenging the appointment of

the Ombudsman, by the Honorary Secretary is not

entertained in view of the peculiar surrounding facts and

circumstances. 2026:MLHC:1217

Page 22 of 22

iii) WP(C) No. 377 of 2026 challenging the suspension of

the Honorary Secretary stands dismissed and order of

suspension dated 27.06.2026, upheld.

iv) The Ombudsman’s appointment in view of the

circumstances, shall be treated as functional de facto until

the matter is taken up in the next AGM for necessary

process.

v) The Honorary Secretary on his suspension being upheld

and other respondents shall ensure assets handover

within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of this

order, including digital credentials, e-mail identity etc.

vi) The MCA is directed to ensure strict implementation of

the POSH Act, 2013, and to put in place safety protocols

within the shortest possible period, preferably within

6(six) weeks from the date of this order.

21. As ordered above, these writ petitions are accordingly closed and

disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya

30.10.2026

“D.Thabah-PS”

2026:MLHC:1217