Rajasthan High Court: In a petition challenged the disqualification of Kota District Cricket Association (‘KDCA’) and the appointment of an Adhoc Committee by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (“the Rajasthan Sports Act”) to hold fresh election, a single-judge bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., dismissed the writ petition due to availability of alternative statutory remedy and as the election process has already started.
Factual Matrix of KDCA’s Fresh Election case
In the instant matter, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, exercising powers under Section 23 of Rajasthan Sports Act, initiated an enquiry against the KDCA based on complaints by Bharat Club Kota and Rival Club Kota.
An enquiry officer was appointed, and the enquiry was completed on 17-01-2025. The Registrar passed an order dated 24-01-2025 and disqualified the existing executive of KDCA under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Sports Act and appointed an Adhoc Committee with direction to hold fresh elections within three months.
KDCA challenged the impugned order by filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Sports Act before the Appellate Authority, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the Adhoc Committee issued an election notification on 12-03-2025, scheduling elections for 08-04-2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed another writ challenging the said notification.
This Court stayed the election process via interim order dated 03-04-2025. The Adhoc Committee appealed against the stay, and the Division Bench allowed them to seek vacation of the stay before the Single Judge Bench.
Moot Point
- Whether the Registrar’s order dated 24-01-2025 disqualifying KDCA and appointing an Adhoc Committee was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
- Whether the election process initiated by the Adhoc Committee could be stayed after commencement?
-
Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in light of the statutory remedy provided under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports Act?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners contented that the Registrar failed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the 24-01-2025 order, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It was contended that the reconstitution of Primary Sports Bodies (PSBs) was carried out illegally, without notice or complaints against them. It was further argued that the election list provided under RTI on 17-03-2025 materially differed from the one published earlier, indicating a lack of transparency.
However, the respondents argued that proper enquiry and hearing was conducted before disqualification. It was asserted that Section 24 of the Rajasthan Sports Act mandates elections within three months upon constitution of an Adhoc Committee. It was argued that the election process commenced on 17-03-2025 and interference now would disrupt democratic functioning.
Court’s Observation
The Court emphasised on the foundational principle that “free and fair elections” are essential to the functioning of democratic institutions, including sports associations and stated that the judiciary must tread carefully in matters relating to elections to avoid disrupting democratic governance.
The Court asserted that allowing judicial intervention in the midst of the electoral process could result in “administrative paralysis” and “practical chaos,” especially when the process has already been set in motion. The Court further highlighted the logistical complexity involved in organizing elections and stated that interrupting it mid-way would lead to a waste of resources and also violate the spirit of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports Act.
The Court upheld the view that “once the election process has commenced, it cannot be stopped or postponed, except under specific circumstances such as natural calamities or severe law and order issues.” The Court asserted that the Supreme Court in various precedents has consistently held that “the election process encompasses all stages from the notification of elections to the declaration of results. Any disputes or challenges must wait until the election is concluded.”
Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that this principle is not absolute and stated that in rare and exceptional cases, where “executive actions subvert principles of fairness and equal opportunity” or where rights are “irreparably infringed,” judicial interference may be warranted. The Court noted that “staying the entire election should be the last choice, not the first reaction.”
On petitioner’s allegations that no proper hearing was provided before passing the disqualification order dated 24-01-2025, the Court held that these facts are primarily factual disputes that are best adjudicated before the appellate authority under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Sports Act. The Court declined to go into the merits of the hearing opportunity or the correctness of the inquiry in its writ jurisdiction.
Regarding maintainability, the Court invoked Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports Act, which mandates conciliation and arbitration for disputes related to elections and stated that “from plain reading… it is clear that if any dispute arises with regard to constitution, management activity, election or affiliation… same shall be resolved through conciliation and arbitration.”
Given that the petitioner had not availed this mandatory alternative remedy and instead approached the Court directly only six days before the scheduled elections, the Court held the petition to be premature and not maintainable.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition no. 5158/2025 as not maintainable, with liberty to avail statutory remedy under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports Act and if initiated within four weeks, be treated within limitation. The Court disposed of the writ petition no. 4916/2025 with direction to —
- Resume election process afresh from the stage it was stayed;
- Not declare final results until decision of the pending appeal under Section 35 of the Rajasthan Sports Act;
-
Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within two months.
[Ameen Pathan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5158/2025, Decided on 04-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. S.S. Hora, Mr. Adesh Arora and Mr. Ramesh Chand Bairwa, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar, AGC, Mr. Sanwar Mal Sharma, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Mr. Sunil Samdaria and Mr. Arihant Samdaria, Counsel for the Respondents
