Please visit Delhi High Court official website for the complete copy of judgement. We have here reproduced some portions of it.
The case:
1. This petition by the Indian Hockey Federation (`IHF?), a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, challenges the
Resolution dated 28th April 2008 passed by the Indian Olympic
Association (`IOA), Respondent No. 2 herein suspending the
Governing Council of the IHF, and appointing an Ad-hoc Committee
(earlier Respondent No. 3) for administering the affairs of the IHF.
The IHF also challenges the decision dated 7th May 2008 of the Union
of India through Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (`MYAS’),
Respondent No.1, in conveying its approval of the suspension of the IHF and appointment
of the Ad hoc Committee by the IOA.
The third challenge is to the
order passed by the MYAS on 12th May 2008 suspending the recognition
of the IHF in terms of Para I.2 of Annexure-III of the “Guidelines
for Assistance to the National Sports Federations” (“Guidelines”).
The fourth challenge is to the subsequent disaffiliation of the IHF
by the IOA on 10th May 2009 and finally to the decision dated
10th/11th August 2009 of the MYAS withdrawing the recognition of the
IHF.
Some facts
Whatever the decision of the I.O.A. General Assembly, it must be
supported by two-third majority votes of the Members present and
voting. v. If the IOA General Assembly takes a decision to
disaffiliate a national Sports Federation/Association/Sate Olympic
Association, the President, IOA will have the authority to
constitute an ad-hoc body, preferably from amongst the Members of
the IOA General Assembly, to look after the work done by the
disaffiliated National Sports Federation/Association/State Olympic
Association till such time that the President, IOA arranges for
fresh elections to be held in the concerned National Sports
Federation/ Association/State Olympic Association which would than
start functioning in the normal manner.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The
Petitioner states that a Joint Meeting was held between the IHF and
the Indian Women Hockey Federation (IWHF) on 4th November 2000 and
at that meeting the Indian Hockey Confederation (`IHC?) was formed
as a unified national body. The respective General Bodies of IHF and
IWHF passed resolutions in this regards. This became necessary on
account of the conditionality laid down by the FIH. In 2001 itself
the FIH at its Congress approved the IHC and its constitution. It is
stated that since 2001 all matters concerning hockey in India were
administered by the IHC which conducted international events with
the approval of the FIH. However, both IHF and IWHF continued to be
recognized by both the Respondent No. 1 as well as IOA. The FIH and
the IHC entered into an MOU on 6th November 2007 for implementation
of the project “Promoting Indian Hockey” and hosting the 2010 Men?s
Hockey World Cup in India.
14. It is stated that the procedure followed by IHF for selecting
teams for participation in international events and tournaments is
to constitute a Selection Committee consistent with the 2001
Guidelines. In January 2008 FIH selected players to participate in
the 8 Nation Tournaments to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; the
Test Series in Belgium, the Olympic Qualifier Tournament in
Santiago, the 4 Nation Tournament in Australia and the Azlan Shah
Hockey Tournament in Malaysia. A preparatory coaching camp was
organized from 25th March to 17th April 2008 in the Campus of the
SAI at Bangalore. The Camp Coordinator, by a letter dated 9th April
2008, submitted to the MYAS a list of players selected to represent
India and to participate in the 4 Nation Hockey Tournament in
Australia and in the Azlan Shah Hockey Tournament in Malaysia. The
MYAS approved 18 players, and further directed that 6 to 8 players
of the approved list would be replaced for the tournament in
Malaysia from the team touring Australia and that they will directly
go from India.
15. On 21st April 2008 several events occurred
simultaneously. An Associate Editor of TV Today Network Ltd (`TV
Today?) sent an e-mail to media under the caption “Jothikumaran
caught on camera accepting bribe for selecting a player for the
Indian Hockey Team.” TV Today claimed to have undertaken a “Sting
Operation” in which the IHF’s Secretary General Mr. K. Jothikumaran
was shown receiving cash for getting a player included in the senior
team. This was aired by Aaj Tak News.
16. On the same day, an e-mail was sent by the FIH to the IOA
expressing “a deep concern that progress on the project and plans
for the World Cup have not met FIH expectations.” The e-mail attached a copy of the
letter addressed from the President of the IHC which explained the
current position. The letter pointed out that “the allocation of the
World Cup to India is now seriously at risk. Please do all you can
to assist and to ensure that the project and the World Cup stay on
track.” The Secretary General, FIH addressed a separate letter to
the President of the IOA about the allegations in the Indian press
“concerning alleged improper conduct” by the Secretary General of
the IHC which was “a cause for very great concern.”
17. A separate letter dated 21st April 2008 addressed by the Secretary General FIH
to Mr. KPS Gill, President of the IHC highlighted the fact that the
Indian Men’s team had failed to qualify for the Beijing Olympic
Games. While asserting that the failure was not attributable to the
FIH, the letter noted that there was great disappointment in leading
articles in the Indian press, “quoting the coach and assistant
coach, making all manner of criticism of technical officials, FIH
and others to deflect attention from their own failings.” The letter
proceeded to state as under:
“Dear Mr. Gill, it appears that there is a substantial breakdown in
communications and understanding between yourself, the IHC, the IHF
and the IWHA on the one side and FIH on the other. FIH came to
Indian Hockey in good faith to offer assistance to help return
Indian Hockey to its place at the top of the podium. FIH committed
substantial funding to the Project, secured the services of both Bob
Davidzon (in a totally honorary capacity) and Ric Charlesworth, one
of the worlds’ pre-eminent coaches, and decided in principle to
bring the 2010 Men’s World Cup to Delhi, without following the usual
FIH protocols with respect to allocation of tournaments. The motives
behind these FIH initiatives were totally open and honorable. The
primary benefit was for Indian Hockey. The secondary benefit was the
promotion of the sport, worldwide. It is a mystery to me, the FIH
President and my colleagues on the FIH Executive Board that these
initiatives have not been welcomed with open arms by the Indian
hockey family, indeed it would appear to the contrary. While the
focus of this letter is the Project, the World Cup is also very much
in consideration. Apart from the construction of the stadium (for
which the IHC has no responsibility), almost every other aspect of
the organisation for which the IHC is responsibly is well behind
schedule. This is of great concern and I ask that you take whatever
steps are necessary as a matter of urgency to rectify this
situation.”
18. The letter then proceeded to set a deadline for
confirming that the IHC had complied with the requirements of FIH
failing which the FIH will be entitled to terminate the MOU and
consequentially the proposal to hold the 2010 Men’s World Cup in
India. FIH demanded a letter from the IHC “by 5.00 pm Lausanne time
on 29 April, 2008” indicating that “there is a positive attitude
from the IHC to the success of the Project, and indicating that a
further letter will be provided by the IHC within an additional 14
days” which was to be expired soon.
19. On 22nd April 2008 an emergent meeting of the IOA Executive
Council was convened in the IOA?s office at New Delhi “to discuss
the matters pertaining to the Indian Hockey Federation, in reference
to the charges against the Secretary General, IHF, Sh. K.
Jothikumaran.” Since much turns on this letter, it is necessary to reproduce it in full:
“IOA/EC/Meeting 22nd April 2008 Sub: IOA Executive Council –
Emergency meeting. The President IOA has directed me to call an
emergency meeting of the Executive Council of the Indian Olympic
Association which will be held at 3:00 p.m. on 28th April 2008 in
IOA office at Olympic Bhavan, B-29, Qutub Institutional Area, New
Delhi to discuss the matters pertaining to the Indian Hockey
Federation, in reference to the charges against the Secretary
General, IHF, Shri K. Jothikumaran. This meeting is convened at
short notice due to the urgency of the matter. Kindly make it
convenient to attend the meeting. Dr. Lalit K Bhanot Joint
Secretary”
20. A copy of the said notice of the meeting was sent to
Shri KPS Gill who apparently attended the said meeting on 28th April
2008.
21. On 23rd April 2008 an order was passed by the MYAS
appointing Shri Ajit Pal Singh and Shri Zafar Iqbal as the
Government Observers in the discipline of Hockey (Men) whereas Smt.
Roopa Saini, continued to be the Government Observer for Hockey
(Women). On its part, the IHF constituted a three member committee
on 25th April 2008 to inquire into the allegations against Mr.
Jothikumaran. On 27th April 2008 Jothikumaran addressed a letter to
the President of the IHF dissociating himself from the
responsibilities entrusted to him and promising his cooperation in
the inquiry.
22. By a resolution dated 28th April 2008, the Executive Council of
the IOA suspended the IHF. The intimation regarding the said
emergency meeting was sent by the Secretary General, IOA on 29th
April 2008 to all the State Units of the IHF and the IHF itself. The
communication stated that the IHF was suspended with immediate
effect and that “the President, IOA is authorized to form an ad-hoc
committee of 5 members to administer and manage the affairs of the
Federation till all issues including governance of the Federation
are finally resolved.” The Executive Council formed a 5-Member
Selection Committee comprising of Mr. Aslam Sher Khan as the
Chairman, Mr. Ajitpal Singh, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Jaffar Iqbal and
Mr. Dhanraj Pillai, former Olympians as its members to select the
teams for all forthcoming International events/championships. Mr.
Ric Charlesworth was to be the Advisor to the Selection Committee.
It requires to be noted at this juncture that the minutes of the
emergency meeting of the Executive Council of the IOA held on 28th
April 2008 have not been placed on record in these proceedings.
23. The above letter dated 29th April 2008 was received by the IHF
on 5th May 2008. Mr. KPS Gill protested against the said decision of
the IOA and wrote a letter to the MYAS pointing out that it was
contrary to the Guidelines. The IHF kept writing to the IOA asking
for the minutes of the Executive Council of the IOA. On 5th May 2008
Mr. Aslam Sher Khan describing himself as Chairman of the Selection
Committee of the IHF appointed Shri Pargat Singh as Manager of the
Indian Hockey team to participate in the Azlan Shah Cup Invitational
Tournament to be held at Malaysia. This act of appointing Mr. Pargat
Singh was approved by the MYAS by a letter dated 7th May 2008 addressed by it to the Ad Hoc Committee appointed by the IOA.
24. At this stage, it must be noticed that the Secretary of the FIH prepared an advisory note on 7th May 2008 regarding “the status of Indian Hockey Confederation in
the Indian Olympic Association.” This note acknowledged that neither
the IHF nor the IWHF were members of the FIH but that “the IHC is a
member of the FIH as the sole governing body for hockey, men and
women in India” and that “the IHF and the IWHF are the members of
the IHC.” Further, the consequences of the IHC ceasing to be a
member of the FIH were spelt out as under:
• “Indian teams, men and women, could no longer participate in any
tournaments organised by the FIH or the AHF or organised under their
jurisdiction.
• FIH could not continue with the Project.
• FIH could not hold the 2010 Men?s World Cup in India.
• Indian hockey would not be entitled to participate in the affairs
of the FIH or the AHF, for example they would not be entitled to
attend the FIH Congress or meetings of the AHF not nominate members
of Committees.
• No officials (judges umpires, etc.) from India could be appointed
to any tournament conduct by or under the jurisdiction of the FIH or
AHF.”
25. However, it was noted by the FIH that it was not the wish of the
FIH that “the IHC should cease to be a member of the FIH, with all
the consequences that would follow, but it is our obligation to
ensure that the Statutes are observed not just in words but also in
commitment and
action.” It was further pointed out as under: “For the IHC to remain
a member of the FIH, urgent steps are required to properly
constitute it as the sole governing body for hockey, men and women,
in India with proper governance principles and structure and a clear
commitment from all parties involved in the Confederation to achieve
this objective.” 26. On 13th May 2008 the present writ petition was
filed. On 14th May 2008 notice was directed to be issued in the writ
petition. It transpired later that although a decision was taken on
12th May 2008 by the MYAS suspending recognition of the IHF, this
Court was not kept informed of the said decision. The said document
was placed much later on the record of this court along with the
rejoinder of the Petitioner. The said order dated 12th May 2008
reads as under: “No.F.32-23/2008-SP.III Government of India Ministry
of Youth Affairs & Sports New Delhi, the 12th May, 2008 O R D E R
Pursuant to the suspension of Indian Hockey Federation by the Indian
Olympic Association and formation of an ad-hoc Committee by the
Indian Olympic Association to manage the affairs of Indian Hockey
Federation in the interim, the recognition of the Indian Hockey
Federation by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports is hereby
suspended, as per provisions contained in Para 1 (ii) of the
Annexure III of the “Guidelines for Assistance to the National
Sports Federations” till further orders. This issues with the
approval of the Competent authority. Sd/- (Deepika Kachhal) Deputy
Secretary to the Government of India”
27. The above order of suspension of recognition was received by the
Petitioner on 23rd May 2008. On 29th August 2008 this Court directed
Respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit indicating the time frame
within which the elections of Office Bearers of the Council of the
IHF were to be held. However, till date no such affidavit has been
filed. On its part, the Petitioner filed CM No. 13945 of 2008 for a
direction for the elections to be conducted under the aegis of a
retired Judge. Although notice was issued in the said application on
3rd October 2008, till date none of the Respondents have filed a
reply to the said application. Constitution of the Nine Member
Committee of IOA 28. On 10th October 2008, an AGM was held of the
General Assembly of the IOA at Pune. A copy of the resolution passed
at the said AGM has been placed on record. The relevant item
concerning IHF reads as under: “Item No.6 Decision of the Executive
Council. Secretary General apprised the House about the discussions
and decisions taken in the Special Council Meeting held on 28th
April, 2008 in connection with Hockey. He further explained that FIH
wanted IOA to intervene and take appropriate decision in order to
promote Hockey in the Country and to retain the 2010 Hockey World
Cup which was allotted to Delhi, India. He further reiterated that
FIH had mentioned in their letter that in case appropriate action
was not taken, FIH was considering to withdraw the allotment of
World Cup Hockey.
Secretary General further explained that FIH was also insisting to
have one Governing body of Hockey in India to govern Hockey – Men
and Women. Mr. Govindraj and Mr. S.M. Bali raised the issue as to
how IOA could give affiliation to two Governing bodies in
Hockey which was against the Constitution of IOA as well as Charter
of IOC? Resolution: “The House unanimously approved the decision
taken by the Special Executive Council in its meeting held on 28th
April, 2008 with regard to the Indian Hockey Federation and its
suspension. The House also approved the decision of the Special
Executive Council regarding the Constitution of the Ad Hoc Committee
and the Constitution thereof.” The House unanimously decided to
constitute a nine member Committee to look after the specific issues
with regard to the Administration and Management of Hockey in India
in respect of both Men and Women Hockey Federation and to have one
unified Body governing the affairs of Indian Hockey and ensure
adherence of the mandate of FIH, IOA & Olympic charter. The 9 Member
Committee consists of the following members:- 1. Shri Harish Sharma
– Chairman 2. Dr. Lalit K. Bhanot – Member 3. Shri Avinash Kohli –
Member 4. Shri M.C. Chowhan – Member 5. Smt. Vidya Stoke – Member 6.
Smt. Amrita Bose – Member 7. Md. Aslam Khan – Member 8. Shri Rajeev
Mehta – Member 9. Shri Rakesh Gupta – Member The House unanimously
approved that a nine member Committee be vested with all powers of
General Body and, empower it to take any decision which the General
Body can take, as per rules and to ensure that there is complete
adherence to the Constitution and the rules & regulations of IOA as
well as the mandate of FIH and the IOC Charter.
The House further unanimously resolved that the decisions taken by
the nine member Committee shall be binding on all concerned as the
powers of the General Body stand delegated to the nine member
Committee and based on their recommendations, President of IOA is
authorised to take further decision to fulfill the aims and objects
of the Constitution of IOA. The House unanimously resolved that the
Nine Member Committee would apprise of the decisions taken to all
the members who even otherwise are amongst the members of the IOA
General Assembly.” Meetings of the Nine Member Committee 29. On 21st
November 2008 the first meeting of the above Nine Member Committee
of the IOA was held. The Chairman of the Committee informed the
members that a letter had been received from the FIH directing the
IOA “to form a Unified Body in Hockey which should govern Men and
Women Hockey in India.” It was then stated that the formalities to
make “one Hockey Body in India” will be finalized at the next
meeting. 30. At the AGM of the FIH held on 29th November 2008, three
of the nine members of the above Committee were present. One of the
items in the agenda for this meeting was: “Consideration of
applications for new membership” in which was included “Hockey
India–Transfer of Membership from IHC subject to finalization of
their constitution.” This was apparently done without even taking a
decision for disaffiliation of IHF and the IWHF.
31. The Nine Member Committee met again on 21st December 2008. There
was no mention made of the AGM of the FIH held on 29th November
WP(C) No.3713/2008 Page 19 of 43
2008. It was mentioned in the meeting by the Chairman that it was
imperative to first disaffiliate both IHF and the IWHF and
thereafter grant affiliation to one body to manage affairs of hockey
of men and women in India. It was also agreed to request State
Olympic Associations to have one body at the state level. What is
significant is that by that time one of the nine members had
expired. One other member Mrs. Amrita Bose did not sign the minutes.
Disaffiliation of the IHF by the IOA 32. At the next meeting of the
Nine Member Committee held on 12th January 2009, it was recorded
that the members agreed to the proposal that the constitution of the
IHF was per se illegal and further that the members had approved
disaffiliation of both IHF and IWHF. At the said meeting, one of the
members Dr. Lalit K. Bhanot apprised other members that a show cause
notice was required to be given before a member is disaffiliated.
Accordingly, the Committee decided that the show cause notice would
be issued to both the IHF and IWHF. This is clear from the following
extract of the minutes of the said meeting: “The issue of Show Cause
Notice to be given to IHF and IWHF was discussed and it was
unanimously resolved to send Show Cause Notice to both the Hockey
Federations to explain as to why their Federations should not be
disaffiliated in the light of FIH directions, IOA Constitution and
IOC Charter. It was further decided that after receiving their
respective replies, the details will be worked out in the next
meeting. It was also suggested that IHF be served also through the
Ad-hoc Committee and more information about the state of Hockey in
India be obtained.
It was decided that the Chairman of the nine members Committee
should send a suitably drafted show cause notice to IWHF, IHF, the
Ad-hoc Committee, IHF after receiving legal opinion on the subject.”
(emphasis supplied) 33. Following the above meeting, separate
notices dated 16th January 2009 were issued to the President of the
IWHF and to Aslam Sher Khan, Convener, Ad hoc Committee, IHF. The
notice was asked to show cause why the IHF “be not be disaffiliated/
de-recognised by the IOA to permit a single body for Hockey to look
after both male and female Hockey activities in India.” 34. The
above documents have been placed on record in these proceedings
along with an additional affidavit dated 12th April 2010 of Mr.
Randhir Singh, the Secretary General of IOA. Inter alia it is
mentioned in this affidavit that on 10th May 2009 the IHF was
disaffiliated by the IOA. The decision of the Nine Member Committee
was communicated by a letter dated 16th March 2009 addressed by its
Chairman to the President, IOA to the following effect: “a) Indian
Hockey Federation (IHF) and Indian Women Hockey Federation (IWHF) to
be disaffiliated with immediate effect. b) IOA to constitute a
single body of Hockey namely “Hockey India” which will look after
the affairs of Hockey in India for Men and Women. c) A single Unit
be also formed at the State level with the help of State Olympic
Associations.
d) IOA to grant provisional affiliation to Hockey
Association/Federation which will govern and administer Hockey in
India for men and women and which will ensure one unit for all the
states to govern the function of both Men and Women in the state
with the help of State Olympic Association. e) After formation of
State Unit, election of the National body be conducted within six
months of its registration under supervision of observer from FIH.”
35. Following this, on 5th May 2009 the FIH wrote to the IOA urging
it to create one body for both men?s and women?s hockey. On 10th May
2009, the President IOA wrote to Mr. Md.Aslam Khan, the Convener of
the Ad Hoc Committee of the IHF that the IHF had been disaffiliated
“with immediate effect and ceased to be a member of the IOA.” The
said letter dated 10th May 2009 was placed on the record of these
proceedings much later on 15th January 2010 with the affidavit of
the IOA. The said letter reads as under: “Subject: Disaffiliation of
Indian Hockey Federation I wish to convey you the decision taken by
the General Body of IOA in its meeting held on 10th October, 2008,
regarding Constitution of 9 members Committee. As per the decision
of the General Body, the said Committee was having all power of
General Body with regard to the affairs of Hockey in India.
In the interest of Hockey in India, decision being taken to adhere
to the decision given by 9 members Committee in the light of FIH
Constitution and directive, Constitution of Indian Olympic
Association and Olympic Charter. The 9 members Committee has decided
for the disaffiliation of both Men and Women Hockey Federation of
India and to provide affiliation to One Body to control and administer the affairs of Hockey in India
Men and Women both. In light of the decision taken by the 9 Members
Committee, the Indian Hockey Federation has been disaffiliated with
immediate effect and seized to be the member of IOA.”
36. Further on
10th May 2009 itself the Ad hoc Committee appointed by the Executive
Council of the IOA to manage the activities of the IHF was dissolved
and disbanded by the IOA. 37. A new society named “Hockey India” was
registered on 20th May 2009. By a letter dated 28th May 2009 the
President, Hockey India was informed by the President of the IOA
that in terms of the recommendation of the Nine Member Committee and
in exercise of the powers vested in him the IOA had granted
provisional affiliation to “Hockey India”.
38. At the hearing of this petition on 9th July 2009, this Court was
informed of the disaffiliation which according to counsel for the
IOA had rendered the petition infructuous. This court required the
IOA to file an affidavit to bring on record the subsequent
developments. Pursuant thereto a short affidavit was filed by the
IOA on 4th September 2009. For the first time mention was made of
the fact that Hockey India had been formed and that it had been
granted affiliation by the FIH on 14th June 2009. The Petitioner
then deleted the Ad Hoc Committee of the IHF which was impleaded as
Respondent No.3 from the array of parties. At the hearing on 23rd
October 2009 this Court directed that the order of disaffiliation be
placed on record.
The MYAS was permitted to file an additional affidavit. The stand of
the MYAS and the IOA 39. At this juncture it is important to advert
to the stand taken by the MYAS and the IOA from time to time. The
counter affidavit filed by the MYAS on 28th August 2008 confirmed
that it had suspended the recognition of the IHF pending the outcome
of a full inquiry. Reference was made to the Guidelines. In para 3
it was stated as under: “One of the grounds is suspension by the
Respondent No.2 Association. It is, therefore, respectfully
submitted that firstly the suspension is an interim measure, which
is pending a complete and full enquiry, the ultimate consequence
being de-recognition. It is further submitted that before
de-recognising a particular federation, an opportunity is given for
presenting its defence. The suspension being an interim measure is
followed on the grounds given in clause 1 of the said procedure. In
the present case, the said clause 2 is squarely attracted as the
Petitioner Association has been suspended. The answering Respondent
is well within its right to suspend purely as an interim measure to
the Petitioner Association.” (emphasis supplied) 40. Therefore,
according to the MYAS, the suspension of the recognition of the IHF
was only on account of its suspension by IOA. The suspension of
recognition was “purely as an interim measure.” The counter
affidavit further only referred to the “Sting Operation” as one of
the reasons for the suspension. However, it is not in dispute that
the above suspension of recognition was not followed by any inquiry
by the MYAS. There is no change in this position even as of date.
41. Respondent No. 2 IOA by way of an affidavit dated 15th January
2010 placed on record a copy of the disaffiliation order dated 10th
May 2009. The above affidavit dated 15th January 2010 was filed
purportedly in compliance with the order dated 23rd October 2009.
However, since this Court did not find it strictly in compliance
with that order, it passed the following order on 18th January 2010:
“1. Mr. Malhotra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Indian
Olympic Association („IOA?) states that the additional affidavit
filed on 15th January 2010 is not strictly in compliance with the
order dated 24th October 2009. Mr. Malhotra further states that he
will place on record along with an affidavit, to be filed within two
weeks, the resolution of the IOA as well as nine-member Committee
with regard to the decision to disaffiliate the Petitioner-Indian
Hockey Federation from the IOA. Mr. Malhotra, learned Senior counsel
states that along with the affidavit placing the resolution on
record, he will also explain the basis on which IOA seeks to
exercise and control over the affairs of the Petitioner. 2. In para
8 of the statement supported by an affidavit dated 4th September
2009 filed on behalf of the IOA, it is stated that Hockey India
(„HI?) has already been registered as a Society under the Societies
Registration Act 1860 on 20th May 2009 and has been granted
affiliation by Federation International Hockey on 14th June 2009. It
is further stated that the Government of India has also granted
recognition to HI. 3. The Respondent No.1 Union of India shall file
an affidavit within two weeks to confirm whether the above
assertions are correct and if so, the decision taken by it in this
regard shall be placed on record. It will also explain the basis on
which such recognition was purportedly granted to HI. 4. Mr. Nigam,
learned Senior counsel has expressed an apprehension that the
Respondents will take further decisions and present the Court with a
fait accompli. Needless to state that any action taken by the
Respondents will be subject to further orders and the final result
of the present writ petition. 5. List on 3rd February 2010. Order be
given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.”
42. Following the above order an additional affidavit was filed only
by Respondent No. 2 on 1st February 2010. Along with this affidavit, a
copy of the Resolution approved by the General Body of the IOA in
its meeting held in Pune on 10th October 2008; a copy of the e-mail
dated 5th May 2009; a copy of the decision of the Nine Member
Committee and a Certificate of Incorporation of HI as well as the
letter granting it provisional affiliation, were enclosed. 43. By
another affidavit dated 2nd February 2010 the Respondent No. 2 IOA
sought to replace paras 8 and 9 of its affidavit dated 1st February
2010 as under: “8. That the Constitution of FIH used to list Indian
Hockey Confederation as its member. The IHC was recognized by the
IOA initially to meet the requirements of the FIH only whereas for
the purposes of IOA and Govt. of India, the two bodies i.e. IHF and
IWHF continued to be the members of the IOA. It was hoped by the IOA
that these two bodies would merge but these two bodies did not merge
for IOA purposes and their continued existence was contrary to the
Constitution of IOA, IOC and FIH. 9. That it was misrepresented and
falsely projected to FIH by both IHF and IWHF, in order to overcome
the requirement of one Federation for Hockey that Indian Hockey
Confederation is only one Federation of Hockey in India looking
after both male and female hockey. However in reality and for IOA
and Govt. of India as well, both IHF and IWHF were separate members.
The grants were received by both IHF and IWHF from Govt. for
participation abroad whereas participation was being shown to be in
the name of IHC. It is submitted that IHC was a defunct body whose
elections since formation have not been held.”
44. On 3rd February 2010 this Court passed the following order: “1.
Submissions of Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the Petitioner have been heard at great length. 2. There are two
principal issues that arise for consideration in this petition. One
concerns the suspension of the recognition of the Petitioner Indian
Hockey Federation („IHF?) by the Central Government in terms of its
guidelines and the appointment by the Indian Olympic Association
(„IOA?) on 28th April 2008 of a nine-member Committee to manage the
affairs of the Petitioner which decision appears to have been
ratified at the Annual General Meeting of the IOA held on 10th
August 2008. It is the case of the Petitioner that suspension of its
recognition as well as the appointment of the Committee to manage
its affairs were without giving it prior notice, therefore, the
violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. The second issue
that arises is subsequent disaffiliation of the Petitioner from the
IOA. In this regard IOA has filed several affidavits. The affidavit
dated 1st February 2010 encloses a copy of letter dated 16th March
2009 written by the Chairman of the nine-member Committee which
inform the President, IOA that the said Committee had decided to
disaffiliate both the Petitioner as well as Indian Women?s Hockey
Federation with immediate effect. Although, the said letter enclosed
the minutes of those meetings held on five occasions, they have not
been placed on record in these proceedings by the IOA. 4. Mr. Harish
Malhotra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the IOA states that
he will, within a period of five weeks, place on record a copy of
the minutes of all the meetings of the nine-member Committee.
5. From the letter dated 16th March 2009 of the Chairman of the
Committee, it appears that a show cause notice issued to the ad hoc
Committee appointed by the IOA on 29th April 2008 to administer and
manager the affairs of the Petitioner. The IOA will explain how the
issuance of such show cause notice to the ad hoc committee satisfies
the requirement of the principles of natural justice as regards its
decision to disaffiliate the Petitioner. 6. It appears that under
the guidelines issued by the Central Government the power vests in
the Central Government to withdraw recognition after giving the
Petitioner and adequate opportunity. Mr. Jatan Singh, learned Senior
standing counsel appearing for the Union of India („UOI?) confirms
that till date recognition of the Petitioner has not been withdrawn.
He is also unable to inform the Court that whether any enquiry is
contemplated preceding such action. The Government has suspended the
recognition of the Petitioner with effect from 12th May 2008 only on
the ground that the IOA had suspended the Petitioner?s affiliation.
The UOI will file an affidavit within a period of five weeks
explaining its stand in the matter particularly with reference to
the continuance of suspension of the recognition of the Petitioner
and any further action that is contemplated. 7. Mr. Nigam has also
produced before the Court a copy of letter dated 25th May 2009
written by one of the members of the nine-member Committee
constituted by the IOA to manage the affairs of the Petitioner. The
said letter is taken on record. Mr. Malhotra states that he will
file, within five weeks, a proper affidavit to meet the anomalies
pointed out in the said letter. 8. List on 15th April 2010.”
45. Pursuant to the above order an additional affidavit was filed by
Respondents 1 and 2 in which for the first time it was disclosed
that IHF had in fact been de-recognised. On 15th April 2010, the
following order was passed:- “1. The Central Government has now
filed an affidavit in which at para 8 it is stated that “the
Government derecognized the IHF in accordance with its guidelines
for recognition, a copy of which is filed at Annexure-I”. The order
of derecognition is, however, not placed on record. 2. The records
of the Central Government which should contain the order of
derecognition be produced before the Court on the next date of
hearing. 3. List on 17th May 2010.” 46. At the hearing of the case
on 17th May 2010, the records of the MYAS were perused. It was found
that it contained a copy of the following letter dated 10th/11th
August 2009 written to the Secretary General, IHF by the MYAS: “No.
F.32-23/2008-SP-III Government of India Ministry of Youth Affairs
and Sports —- Dated : 10th/11th August, 2009 To, The Secretary
General, Indian Hockey Federation, 8/40, South Patel Nagar, New
Delhi-110 008. Sub Management of Hockey in India Sir,
Consequent upon the disaffiliation of Indian Hockey Federation by
Indian Olympic Association and confirmation of the same by
Federation International de Hockey, the
international hockey federation, the recognition granted by
Government of India to Indian Hockey Federation stands withdrawn
with immediate effect. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Shankar Lal) Under
Secretary to the Government of India” 47. The court enquired of the
official of the MYAS who had brought the records whether the above
order was in fact communicated to the IHF. The official could not
confirm this position. In response to a query whether any show cause
ntice was issued to the IHF prior to issuing the derecognition
order, the official of the MYAS answered in the negative. 48. The
submissions of Ms. Manmeet Arora, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, Mr. Harish Malhotra, the learned Senior counsel and
Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2
IOA and Mr. Jatan Singh, the learned Senior standing counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 1 MYAS have been heard. Disaffiliation
of the IHF by the IOA
49. One of the issues that arises for consideration concerns the
disaffiliation of the Petitioner by the IOA since, that is the sole
reason for the de-recognition of the IHF by the MYAS. The relevant
provisions of the MOA of the IOA have been referred to hereinbefore.
They clearly envisage that any disaffiliation of an NSF has to be
mandatorily preceded by a show cause notice to the NSF sought to be
disaffiliated. Admittedly, no such show cause notice was ever issued
to the IHF prior to its suspension by the
Executive Council on 28th April 2008. 50. An argument was advanced
by Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney on behalf of the IOA that Mr. KPS Gill as
President of the IHF was invited to the emergency meeting of the IOA
on 28th April 2008 and there he was treated as the representative of
the IHF and “orally?” given a show cause notice; and that his “oral”
responses thereto at the said meeting were found not to be
satisfactory and therefore it was decided to suspend the IHF. This
argument can only be characterized as one of sheer desperation
because it has not even been stated in those words in any affidavit
filed by IOA in these proceedings. Secondly, this Court finds the
explanation to be unconvincing. The reason for the emergency meeting
was the sting operation concerning Mr. Jothikumaran, the then
Secretary General of the IHF. While there may be justification in
insisting that IHF should take corrective action with regard to the
allegations concerning the conduct of one of its office bearers,
that cannot be the reason for placing the IHF itself under
suspension as was done on 28th April 2008. Thirdly, the Rules
incorporated as part of the MOA of the IOA state that it is the
General Assembly of the IOA which has to ultimately consider the
question of suspension of the IHF on the recommendation of the
Executive Council of the IOA or directly by its President. It is not
clear if the Executive Council of the IOA could straightaway place
the IHF under suspension.
51. Two events prompted the extreme action of suspension of IHF?s
affiliation. The first was the sting operation. The second was the
deadline of 29th April 2008 set by the FIH for the IOA to
demonstrate that it was
serious about conducting the Men?s World Cup Hockey 2010 in India.
Even if the action of placing IHF under suspension at that point in
time can be stated to be a knee jerk reaction to the above events,
clearly such suspension was only intended as an interim measure. In
any event, the above events did not obviate the need to issue a show
cause notice to the IHF even after placing it under suspension. That
was, however, never done. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt
that the suspension of the IHF by the IOA by the order dated 28th
April 2008 was, in the circumstances, illegal. 52. The suspension is
illegal on other grounds as well. The MOA of the IOA states that an
ad hoc body can be formed to look after the “disaffiliated” NSF
“till such time the President arranges for fresh elections to be
held.” This indicates that the question of formation of an ad hoc
body arises after a decision is taken to disaffiliate an NSF and not
before. Secondly, it is intended to be in place only till elections
are held to elect the new office bearers of the NSF. On both counts,
the continuance of the suspension of the IHF without any elections
being held of its office bearers was illegal.
53. In terms of the Rules forming part of the MOA of the IOA, a
decision to disaffiliate an NSF has to be taken by the IOA only
after “ensuring that a show cause notice has been served and an
explanation has been obtained and considered from the organization
recommended for the disaffiliation…..” Despite the Nine Member
Committee of the IOA deciding on 12th January 2009 that a show cause
notice should be given not
only to the Ad hoc Body but to the IHF as well, admittedly the show
cause notice dated 16th January 2009 was sent only to the Ad hoc
Committee of the IHF of which Mr. Md. Aslam Khan was the Convener.
Consequently the exercise of issuing a show cause notice to the body
whose conduct was being enquired into was reduced to a farce.
Obviously the Ad hoc Committee was not the one which could answer
the charges against the suspended IHF. This renders the
disaffiliation order dated 10th May 2009 unsustainable in law.
54. The justification advanced by the IOA was the pressure brought
on it by the FIH to do something to form one united body for men?s
and women’s hockey by the letter dated 5th May 2009 failing which
India?s participation in international events, and in particular its
hosting the Men?s World Cup Hockey 2010 was in jeopardy. This
explanation is not acceptable to this Court for the simple reason
that even the suspension of the IHF overnight was attributed to the
pressure brought on the IOA by the FIH. It is seen that the FIH was
not asking that the IFH itself be suspended. In fact, its note of
7th May 2008 acknowledges that IHC continues to be its affiliated
body and that it was not really asking for IHC to cease to be its
member. Be that as it may, the FIH was by no means suggesting that
the IOA should give a complete go-by to its own rules and
regulations and deny the IHF even an opportunity of explaining the
charges against it. Even if the IOA had some explanation for
suspending IHF overnight, the same explanation, viz., the pressure
of the FIH, cannot be offered to justify disaffiliating the IHF
without even issuing a show cause notice. One year?s time was
sufficient for the IOA to have got its act together and listed out
the detailed charges, if any, against the IHF, issue it a proper
show cause notice on that basis, seek an explanation thereon from
the IHF, give the IHF a hearing and then take a decision on such
show cause notice. There can be no excuse for not complying with
this basic requirement of natural justice.
55. On the other hand, it
appears that the IOA used the fact of there being no stay granted by
this court to present it with a fait accompli. Long before Hockey
India was even registered as a society, the FIH was asked to grant
it affiliation at the meeting of the FIH held on 23rd November 2008.
Clearly the disaffiliation of IHF and IWHF was already a foregone
conclusion awaiting only the ritual of passing a formal order. This
perhaps explains why the IOA did not even bother to send the IHF a
show cause notice before disaffiliating it. This was contrary to the
resolution of the Nine Member Committee itself. The notice being
given only to the Ad hoc Body was clearly making a mockery of
complying with the requirement of natural justice. 56. None of the
explanations offered by the IOA convinces the Court that there was
justification in disaffiliating the IHF without issuing a show cause
notice to it. Neither the decision dated 28th April 2008 of the
Executive Council of the IOA placing the IHF under suspension nor
the decision dated 10th May 2009 of the IOA disaffiliating the IHF
can be sustained in law. They are accordingly set aside.
De-recogntion of the IHF by the MYAS
57. The recognition of the IHF was suspended by the MYAS on 12th May
2008 only on the ground that IOA had suspended the IHF and had
appointed an ad-hoc Committee to manage the affairs of IHF. The
counter affidavit first filed by the MYAS indicated that this
suspension of recognition was to be a purely temporary measure. It
was also asserted that before withdrawing recognition, the procedure
outlines in the Guidelines would be followed. 58. Annexure III to
its 2001 Guidelines sets out the procedure for suspension of
recognition. It lists out one of the grounds as “suspension by the
IOA”. The other ground is that such suspension is “in the public
interest” and “in the event of any other serious irregularity being
detected.” In the affidavit dated 28th August 2008 the MYAS took the
stand that Para I.2 that was “squarely attracted” as the Petitioner
Association had been suspended by the IOA. Clause 10 of Annexure-III
concerning “public interest” was not invoked. Further, it was stated
that the suspension was “only as an interim measure”. It is also
asserted that “before derecognizing a particular federation, an
opportunity is given for presenting its defence”. Unfortunately the
MYAS chose not to adhere to its own Guidelines. Without any show
cause notice being issued to the IHF, the MYAS withdrew its
recognition on 10th/11th August 2009.
59. This Court was never informed till an affidavit was filed by the
MYAS on 9th April 2010 that the recognition of the IHF had in fact
been withdrawn. In fact, even with the said affidavit, a copy of the
order withdrawing the IHF?s recognition was not enclosed. This was
at complete variance with the statement made to the court at the
hearing on 3rd
February 2010 where it was maintained that “till date recognition of
the Petitioner Association has not been withdrawn”. It is only at
the hearing on 17th May 2010 that Mr. Jatan Singh produced a copy of
the order dated 10/11th August 2009 withdrawing the recognition
granted by the MYAS to the IHF. Counsel for the Petitioner, however,
denied that the IHF received such a letter. The least the Central
Government could have done was to have informed the Court that it
was proposing to take such an action. Further the only reason given
for withdrawing the recognition was that the IHF has been
disaffiliated by IOA. This Court has already held that the
disaffiliation of the IHF by the IOA was illegal. Consequently, the
order dated 10th/11th August 2009 of the MYAS derecognizing the IHF
also deserves to be set aside as being unsustainable in law. 60.
Secondly, although the 2001 Guidleines unambiguously mandate that
“before withdrawal of recognition, the concerned NSF will, however,
be given reasonable opportunity to present their defence” not even a
show cause notice was issued by the MYAS to the IHF before
derecognizing it. Even on this ground alone the order of
derecognition is required to be declared illegal and set aside.
61. Mr. Jatan Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the MYAS
submitted that earlier two writ petitions had been filed by one
other office bearer of the IHF challenging the decisions of the IOA
that have been challenged in this petition. Although they were
dismissed as withdrawn, this fact ought to have been disclosed by
the Petitioner in this petition. The above submission is untenable
for the two reasons. In the first place, the
earlier writ petitions were filed by Mr. Hardayal Singh Kharbanda
and not the IHF. Secondly, both petitions were dismissed as
withdrawn and therefore, there was no decision on merits. 62. It was
then submitted by Mr. Jatan Singh that under Clause 10 of Annexure
III to the Guidelines it was in „public interest? to derecognize IHF
since its forming the IHC jointly with the IWHF was a serious
irregularity that deserved derecognition. This argument is
unacceptable for the simple reason that no such ground was ever
communicated to the IHF and its explanation sought thereon.
Secondly, even the order of derecognition does not cite this as a
reason. In any event, the more serious the irregularity, the greater
the need to afford the entity proceeded against an opportunity of
defending itself. This only underscores the need for compliance with
the principles of natural justice before a decision adverse to the
Petitioner based on a serious charge is taken. 63. This Court finds
that the MYAS has been largely indifferent to what has been
happening with the IHF and has left the entire control to be taken
over by the IOA. This is contrary to the spirit of the 2001
Guidelines which have been adverted to earlier. The MYAS has not
been able to enforce or implement the Guidelines as far as IHF is
concerned. Although this Court is not called upon to examine the
validity of the formation of Hockey India, it must be pointed out
that despite the order of this Court, the MYAS has not explained on
what basis it granted recognition to Hockey India and whether it
followed the 2001 Guidelines while doing so.
64. The IOA/s actions in this case, and consequently those of the
MYAS stemmed from a knee-jerk reaction to the pressure brought to
bear upon the IOA by the FIH. That the FIH was left confused
wondering whether the IHC represents Indian hockey at all is evident
from its advisory note dated 7th May 2008 where it says “it is not
our wish or intention that the IHC should cease to be a member of
the FIH.” Even if FIH was understandably in some panic, there was no
need for the IOA to react likewise and place the IHF itself under
suspension. It required some calm and collective thinking on what
should be the most appropriate corrective action vis-à-vis the
office bearer who was allegedly found accepting a bribe in the
“Sting Operation”. Incidentally this Court has been informed that
the criminal case registered pursuant to that “Sting Operation” is
still under investigation and no charge-sheet has been filed. This
only shows that an action taken in haste can do irreversible damage
if the status quo thereafter is allowed to continue indefinitely.
Even now if the appropriate corrective action is taken, the
apprehensions of the FIH can be suitably allayed. 65. For the above
reasons this Court sets aside the order dated 10th/11th August 2009
passed by the MYAS derecognizing the IHF. Fait Accompli and
consequential directions
66. Mr. Harish Malhotra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the IOA submitted that even if this Court were to set aside the
order of the IOA disaffiliating the IHF and the order of the MYAS
derecognizing the IHF, the suspension of the IHF should not be
revoked. According to him, while maintaining the suspension of the
IHF, this Court could direct both the
IOA and the MYAS to issue notices to the IHF to ask it to show cause
why its affiliation and recognition respectively should not be
withdrawn. He submitted that the IHF will be given a hearing and a
reasoned decision will thereafter be given. He pleaded that the
suspension of the IHF should be kept operational till such time a
decision was not taken on such show cause notices by the IOA and
MYAS respectively.
67. Mr. Malhotra buttressed the above submission
by pointing out that the Commonwealth Games 2010 were only a few
months away and if at this stage the IHF was revived, it would
result in a chaotic situation since Hockey India had already been
formed as a unified body for men’s and women’s hockey in India.
Hockey India had been granted affiliation by the FIH. Its State
bodies were also under formation. Selection of teams for
international events/tournaments had to be done only by a unified
body, i.e., the Hockey India. Consequently it is pleaded that no
order should be passed lifting the suspension of the IHF.
68.
Supplementing the above submissions, Mr. Lovekesh Sawhney placed
reliance on certain observations in the decisions in S.L. Kapoor v.
Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 and Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of
India (1973) 1 SCC 380.
69. Countering the above submissions, it is pointed out by Ms.
Manmeet Arora, learned counsel for the IHF that both the IOA and the
MYAS were seeking to frustrate the proceedings by presenting the
Court with a fait accompli. She points out that this had already
been apprehended by the
Petitioners when they filed an application, CM No. 13945 of 2008
early on, seeking elections to be held under an Independent
Observer. When this was again raised by the Petitioners before this
Court on 18th January 2010, this Court had observed in its order
that “any action taken by the Respondents will be subject to further
orders and the final result of the present writ petition.”
70. In
the first place, this Court would like to observe that neither
decision cited by Mr. Sawhney helps the case of the IOA. In Keshav
Mills Co. Ltd. the question was when the rules of natural justice
had been complied with at the stage of investigation into the
affairs of the company under Section 15 of the Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act 1951, whether it was again required
to be followed when action was to be taken under section 18A on the
report of the Investigation Committee. Answering the question in the
negative, the Supreme Court observed that “the concept of natural
justice cannot be put into a strait-jacket” and that “everything
will depend on the actual facts and circumstances of a case.” By no
means was the Supreme Court suggesting in that case that the rules
of natural justice could be totally dispensed with as has been done
in the instant case. The said decision can therefore have no
application in the facts of the present case.
71. In S.L. Kapoor the Supreme Court was examining the validity of
the action of the government in superseding the New Delhi Municipal
Committee without complying with the principles of natural justice.
Rejecting the argument that observance of natural justice would have
made
no difference to the decision, and holding the action to be illegal
the Supreme Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy J., observed
(SCC, p.394): “In our view the principles of natural justice know of
no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any
difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance
of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of
prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is
unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that
the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced.” 72. In
S.L. Kapoor the ultimate relief was denied only because only a few
days (less than two weeks) were left for the Committee?s term to
expire. It was in those circumstances observed that if the Committee
was reinstated “it may lead to confusion and even chaos in the
affairs of the municipality.” The situation here bears no
comparison. It is not as if IHF?s term is about to expire or that
“chaos” would result with its revival. The Commonwealth Games are
still a few months away. It will be for the MYAS to decide how best
to go about the matter. This Court cannot be presented with a fait
accompli when the IOA and the MYAS knew fully well that this
petition involving the legality of their actions vis-à-vis the IHF
was pending consideration.
73. Indeed whenever this Court considered passing an interim order,
it was informed by the Respondents that some major international
event is round the corner and therefore, this Court should refrain
from passing orders till such time the event was not concluded. This
was the reason why this
petition was not taken up for final hearing till such time the Men?s
Hockey World Cup 2010 was not concluded. However, that does not mean
that every time there is some sporting event involving hockey in the
offing, the present petition has to be adjourned. It would be unfair
to the Petitioner, which has succeeded in showing that both the
orders of disaffiliation and consequent de-recognition are wholly
illegal, to be denied relief for over two years on the ground that
such order might jeopardize India?s participation in a sporting
event. 74. There is merit in the apprehension expressed by learned
counsel for the petitioner that if the suspension is not lifted and
the parties are required to go through the motions of a show cause
notice followed by a hearing, it might reduce the requirement of
complying with the principles of natural justice to an empty
formality. The very same reasons being put forth now might be used
by the Respondents not to lift the suspension of the IHF. This Court
is of the considered view that the status quo ante the impugned
orders should be restored as far as the petitioner is concerned.
75. This Court is conscious that in Narinder Batra v. Union of India
occasion to consider the binding effect of the Guidelines framed by
the MYAS. A number of directions were issued including one requiring
the MYAS to undertake a detailed enquiry into the working of the
IHF. Although the said judgment in Narinder Batra is under appeal,
no stay has been granted by the Division Bench. There was,
therefore, an opportunity for the MYAS to have undertaken an enquiry
into the working of the IHF and then issued,
if necessary, a show cause notice listing out the irregularities, if
any, detected during such enquiry and elicited the response of the
IHF. That would have enabled the MYAS to avoid the charge of
arbitrariness as is now being laid at its doorstep. Unfortunately,
for over two years now the petitioner IHF has continued to remain
under an illegal suspension, followed by an illegal disaffiliation
and an illegal de-recognition. This situation calls for a
restitutive correction.
76. This court believes that even now it is
not too late for the MYAS to get its act together and set things in
order with the cooperation of both the IHF and the IOA and any other
body that may have been set up. Instead of again panicking about the
revival of the IHF, it requires to be seen how the interests of
hockey in India can be best served. Sports bodies have to have a
degree of autonomy with the government playing the role of an
effective regulator. They must be allowed to function in a
democratic manner with persons really interested in developing the
game participating in its affairs. The knee-jerk reaction to losses
at international events, which are inevitable in competitive events,
and looking for persons to blame, cannot be conducive to a healthy
development of any national sport. For a proper enquiry into the
problems besetting Indian hockey the cloud of „suspension? over the
IHF should be lifted. The past should be put behind and a new
beginning made. The submission made by Mr. Harish Malhotra that
IHF?s suspension should continue is accordingly rejected.
77. For the aforementioned reasons the decision dated 28th April
2008 of the IOA placing the IHF under suspension and the decision
dated 10th May 2009 of the IOA disaffiliating the IHF are hereby quashed. The
decision dated 12th May 2008 passed by the MYAS temporarily
withdrawing the recognition of the IHF and the subsequent order
dated 10th/11th August 2009 passed by the MYAS derecognizing the IHF
are also hereby quashed.
78. The writ petition is allowed with costs
of Rs. 20,000/- of which Rs. 10,000/- each will be paid by
Respondents 1 and 2 to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks
from today. All the pending applications stand disposed of. S.