2003(2) ALL MR 989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND D.B. BHOSALE, JJ.

Miss Sheri Rusi Crawford Vs. Mumbai City Table Tennis Association & Ors.

Writ Petition No.2618 of 2001

26th July, 2002

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. B. D. JOSHI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. R. V. GOVILKAR, Mr. K. Y. MANDLIK, Mr. M. S. KARNIK , Ms. PRACHI NIMBALKAR

Constitution of India, Arts.12,226 - Writ jurisdiction - Amenability - Table Tennis Federation of India - Federation having monopolistic status and sole authority to act on behalf of the Government of India in International Tournaments - Held, federation would be amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The respondent No.3-Federation has monopolistic status and it is the sole authority to act on behalf of the Government of India in the International Tournaments and that the Government of India fully reimburses all the expenses during such tournaments. Without the approval of the Federation, no-one in India can play in any recognised tournaments or even represent India abroad in any of the tournaments. As pointed out hereinabove, the Respondent No.3-Federation is involved in the activities of public nature coming under the public law realm with the overall control of Government of India in its activities. As has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Rohtas Industries Limited's case, U.P.State Co-op.Land Development Bank Limited's case and Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case, the writ would lie against the Respondent No.3-Federation and that the Respondent No.3 would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Court. (1999) 1 SCC 741 and (1976) 2 SCC 82 - followed. [Para 22]

Cases Cited:
Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 [Para 14,22]
Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, (1976) 2 SCC 82 [Para 17,22]
U.P. State Co-op. Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey, (1999) 1 SCC 741 [Para 18,22]


JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT:- By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Respondent No.3 viz. Table Tennis Federation of India dated 4th August, 2001 disqualifying the Petitioner from participating in the inter institutional tournament and/or any other table tennis tournament held through out the Country. The Petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order dated 4th August, 2001 and has also sought for an order of injunction restraining the Respondents from acting in pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 4th August, 2001. The Petitioner has also sought for an order declaring the Resolution passed by Respondent No.3 in its 62nd Annual General Meeting held at Wagle Estate, Thane on 14th November, 1998 as illegal, arbitrary and malafide, and accordingly for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid Resolution passed by the Respondent No.3.

2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Petitioner is a reputed table tennis player and has represented Maharashtra State in the Inter State and National Championships in 1994 at Madras and won the Bronze Medal in the Cadet Team Event. Similarly, she has also represented Maharashtra State in the Inter State and National Championship in 1995 at Pune and won the Silver Medal in the Team Events and Bronze Medal in the individual event. In the year 1996 also she has represented Maharashtra State in the Inter State and National Championships at Indore and won the Silver Medal in the Cadet Girls Team Event and individual event also. It appears that in the year 1996 the Petitioner was also declared as No.2 player of the Country and No.1 player of the Maharashtra State. The Petitioner has also represented the Mahrashtra State in the Inter State and National Championships at Ajmer in 1997 and won the Silver Medal in the Team Events. In the year 1998 and thereafter also she has represented the Mahrashtra State in the Inter State and National Championships at Indore and also in the Chandigarh and won the Silver Medals in the Team Events. Petitioner is the Silver Medalist in the individual events of All India Banks and Gold Medalist in the All India Banking Industry. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is a Scholarship player of Dena Bank since 1st January, 2001 and has been adopted by the Dena Bank from that date till she attains the age of 18 years or till relinquished by the Bank whichever is earlier and she is paid a monthly stipend of Rs. 2500/-. The Petitioner has also given an undertaking to the Dena Bank to play on behalf of Dena Bank in the Bank's team in various tournaments as and when required.

3. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.3 has allegedly passed a Resolution in 62nd Annual General Meeting of the Respondent No.3 held on 14th November, 1998 at Wagle Estate, Thane whereby it was purportedly resolved as under:-

"(3) Bengal table Tennis Association resolved that no scholarship based player be permitted to represent the institution and National Championship. The matter was discussed in detail and it was resolved that no scholarship based player will be permitted to represent Inter Institution and National Championship. However, they will be permitted to play in Zonals and Regional Championships on behalf of their institution".

4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the aforesaid Resolution passed by Respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the principles of encouraging sports in India. The Petitioner states that the Respondent No.3 Federation's constitution is totally silent that the scholarship player cannot play in any tournament in India or abroad. It is the case of the Petitioner that the aforesaid Resolution was neither published nor implemented by the Respondent No.3 in any subsequent tournaments held in India after 14th November, 1998. It is the case of the Petitioner that in none of the rules published by the Respondent No.3 for its tournaments, scholarship/stipend players were banned from playing for their respective institutions. The Petitioner therefore prays that the said purported resolution deserves to be struck down being arbitrary and malafide.

5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Institution membership of Respondent No.3-Federation, are given to those institutions which have their centralised sports board and promote a game in their organisation. All players employed in various nationalised and foreign banks represent their centralised institutions, namely, Banks sports board in different games. The Petitioner states that the Bank's sport board in consultation with the Central Government has formulated a scheme of recruitment of outstanding sports persons on scholarship/stipend basis, and some of the salient features of that scholarship/stipend scheme are as under:-

(a) Players have to be between the age group of 15 years to 18 years and the salary/ scholarship of these sportmen should not exceed the clerical salary.

(b) These sportsmen do not have to work during their scholarship period i.e.between 15 years to 18 years in the bank. Thus the question of exploitation does not atise at all.

(c) Depending upon their performance when they attain the age of a majority they can be considered for regular appointments under the sports quota of the respective banks.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Banks Sports Board provide various facilities to the players and also give travelling allowance, dearness allowance and railway fare alongwith full kit to its employees and/or scholarship/stipend players without any discrimination to represent Banks Sports Board at the national level tournaments. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is the primary function of Respondent No.3-Federation to encourage, promote, develop the game of table tennis in India. The Petitioner contends that the Resolution passed by the Respondent No.3 has no basis and is against the established principle of encouraging table tennis game in India. According to the Petitioner, the aforesaid Resolution passed by Respondent No.3 is arbitrary because it allows a player to play in zonal and regional championship on behalf of their institutions whereas it prohibits the same player to represent institutions at the National Championship. The Petitioner states that the said rule has no logic nor it is in the interest of the game but the said resolution has been passed at the behest of the Secretary of Respondent No.3 malafidely, arbitrarily to ban certain young players from playing at the national level tournament. The Petitioner therefore states that the resolution deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. The Petitioner further states that the said alleged resolution was never circulated and/or published by Respondent No.3. The Petitioner further submits that as a matter of fact, in the inter institution tournament held in August, 2000 at Indore Scholarship/Stipend player Miss Sushmita Roy was allowed to play for Banks Sportsboard team without any objection of whatsoever nature from the Respondent No.3. According to the Petitioner it is pertinent to note that the alleged rule is discriminatory and arbitrarily applied by Respondent No.3 with a malafide intention to discourage certain sportsmen. The Petitioner further states that the said Resolution has no nexus with the encouragement of sports in India, and therefore, the said Resolution dated 14th November, 1998 allegedly passed by Respondent No.3 deserves to be quashed and set aside being arbitrary, illegal and malafide.

8. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 that the Writ Petition is misconceived and not maintainable. According to the Respondent No.3 the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are Associations and therfore no writ will lie against them. According to the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, the Petitioner has not sought any relief against Respondent No.4 and no explanation has been given by Respondent No.4-Union of India though the Respondent No.4 has been joined as party Respondent. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 that Dena Bank has not filed any Petition challenging the order dated 4th August, 2001 impugned in this Petition.

9. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 that the Resolution of Respondent No.3 dated 14th November, 1998 has not been rescinded, modified or superceded by any other resolution, and before the Special General Council meeting of Respondent No.3 held on 27th July, 2000 at Conference Hall, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium at New Delhi and that there was no item regarding the permission to scholarship players and no such resolution on 27th July, 2000 was passed allowing participation of the players on stipend/scholarship, to play in the national and international tournaments.

10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has submitted that in consonancce with the Resolution passed by Respondent No.3 on 14th November, 1998 in 62nd Annual General Meeting at Thane, Dena Bank Team was prevented in playing at the Calcutta event. According to the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, the Petitioner is not an employee of Dena Bank and therefore she could not Dena Bank Team. According to the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, the Petitioner is prohibited from playing as a representative of Dena Bank only at Inter Institutional Championship i.e. Team Events, and in rest of the tournaments she can play even as a scholar/stipend player in individual capacity in any open event.

11. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 that Mr.D.B. Sundar was present in the 62nd Annual General Meeting as the representative of Banks Sports Board and that he did not raise any objection to the said Resolution. Therefore, it is the contention of Respondent No.3 that the said Resolution was passed unanimously, and it cannot be said to be arbitrary or malafide. According to the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 the aforesaid Resolution of Respondent No.3 is binding on Dena Bank and Banks Sports Boards as they are the members of Respondent No.3-Federation. According to the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, every member of the Federation shall be bound to conform to the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Federation which may from time to time, be in force.

12. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3-Federation that even the said Dena Bank, whom the Petitioner had represented, has not been made as party to this petition. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 that the Petitioner was not playing in individual capacity but was playing as a representative of Dena Bank in Banks Sports Control Board Womens Team which was barred from participating because of inclusion of Petitioner in the said Team as she was not an employee. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has further submitted that neither the Dena Bank nor Bank Sports Control Board have challenged the said Resolution dated 14th November, 1998 passed by the Respondent No.3-Federation, nor the order dated 4th August, 2001, and therefore, the Petitioner has no right to challenge the said Resolution or the said order and accordingly, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.3-Table Tennis Federation of India has submitted that unless the Table Tennis Federation of India falls within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would not lie. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has further submitted that the Table Tennis Federation of India is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction because it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the Table Tennis Federation of India is not an 'authority' or an 'instrumentality' of the State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India because it does not perform any public duty and has no monopoly status and does not execute and sovereign function.

14. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, in support of his contention that the petition is not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless it falls under the scope of "State" or "Other Authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas V/s India Institute of Chemical Biology and Others (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 111. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Apex Court applied the test as to whether on facts the body is financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government. If such control is there to that body then that body is a State, and not otherwise. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has submitted that there is no deep and pervasive control by the Government on the Table Tennis Federation of India; and that it is not financially, functionally or administratively controlled by the Government, and therefore, it is not falling under the scope of "State" or "Other Authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and jurisdiction of this Court. In this connection, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 placed reliance on paragraph 40 of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, which reads as under:-

"The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be-whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under state or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State."

Relying upon the aforesaid Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has further submitted that, to be an authority under the scope of "Other Authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the entity should have been created by or under a statute and should be functioning with liability or obligations to the public. The learned Counsel further submitted that, in either case it should be entrusted with the function which are governmental or closely associated therewith being of public importance or fundamental to the life of the people.

15. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in reply to the plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition, has submitted that the following elements of Respondent No.3 clearly makes out that its functions are of public nature in public law realm with overall control of Government of India and also being totally monopolistic:-

(a) To encourage, promote, develop and stabilise the game of Table Tennis in India is the object of the Federation,

(b) Federation arranges and manages the National and Inter-State Table Tennis Championships for Seniors, Juniors and Sub-Juniors, the Inter-Institutional Championships, the Federation Cup and such other Tournaments and matches as the Federation may consider desirable, and accordingly makes and publishes the Rules and Regulations for the same and fixes the dates and places where such Championships, Tournaments or matches shall be held,

(c) Federation makes similar arrangements for International Championships or Tournaments and/or matches,

(d) Federation makes and maintains an Annual National Ranking List of players of the Federation,

(e) Federation upholds, maintains and publishes the Laws of Table Tennis as adopted by the International Table Tennis Federation for the time being in force,

(f) Federation frames and adopts such rules and regulations as may be found necessary by the Federation and gives its decision on all matters which may be referred to it by the various affiliated associations,

(g) The funds of the Federation are under the control of the Committee/Board which have the power to bottow and/or spend such sum of money as it may deem proper for carrying out the objects of the Federation,

(h) Federation carries out the objects of the Federation specified in clause 3 of the Memorandum of the Federation and makes, maintains and publishes all necessary standing orders, regulations and bye-laws in connection therewith,

(i) Federation decides all questions of law and rules relating to the game,

(j) Federation prohibits the holding of unauthorised Tournaments within the jurisdiction of the Federation,

(k) Federation prohibits any act or practice by affiliated Associations, Institutions, District Associations respectively which, in the opinion of the Committee is detrimental to the interests of the game and deals therewith in such manner as it may think proper,

(l) Federation inflicts penalties on affiliated Associations, Institutions, and/or persons for any infringement of the rules.

(m) No player of the Federation shall take part in any open tournament which has not been sanctioned or which has been prohibited by the Council or by the Committee of an affiliated association and the club staging a recognised open tournament shall not receive or accept the entry of any player who has been prohibited from taking part in any open tournament or competition,

(n) Any player taking part in an open tournament which has not been recognised by an Association, if held within its jurisdiction, shall be suspended or debarred from taking part in any open tournament held under the auspices of an affiliated Association, provided that the Committee may re-instate a player for good cause shown,

(o) No player of the Federation shall leave India with a view/purpose of participating in an event relating to the game at any place abroad without prior permission of the Federation obtained in writing from the President and/or Secretary General.

16. Keeping in view the activities of the Table Tennis Federation of India, which arranges the domestic and international tournaments and matches as well as selects the players to represent the nation at international sports events and the monopolistic status it has acquired in the area, it cannot be said that it is engaged only in some private activities in the game of Table Tennis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that Table Tennis Tournaments and Matches which are held and organised by the Federation has wider repercussions on the emotions of the citizens of our Country. Therefore, public watch these matches with great involvement and results are seen as advancing or defeating the national interest in the field of sport. Therefore, the actions or decisions taken by the Federation like the Table Tennis Federation of India cannot be treated as falling exclusively in the private law area, the activities of the Respondent No.3 Federation clearly fall in the public law realm.

17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also brought to our notice the scope of issuance of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. V/s. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, (1976) 2 SCC 82, wherein, in paragraph No.9, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

"The expansive and extraordinary power of the High Courts under Article 226 is as wide as the amplitude of the language used indicates and so can affect any person - even a private individual - and be available for any other purpose - even one for which another remedy may exist. The amendment to Article 226 in 1963 inserting Article 226(1-A) reiterates the targets of the writ power as inclusive of any person by the expressive reference to the residence of such person. But it is one thing to affirm the jurisdiction, another to authorise its free exercise like a bull in a china shop. This Court has spelt out wise and clear restraints on the use of this extraordinary remedy and High Courts will not go beyond those wholesome inhibitions except where the monstrosity of the situation or other exceptional circumstances cry for timely judicial interdict or mandate. The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug should be judiciously administered. Speaking in critical retrospect and portentous prospect, the writ power has, by and large, been the people's sentinel on the qui vive and to cut back on or liquidate that power may cast a peril to human rights. We hold that the award here is not beyond the legal reach of Article 226, although this power must be kept in severely judicious leash."

18. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also brought to our notice another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.State Co-op. Land Development Bank Ltd V/s.Chandra Bhan Dubey & Others (1999) 1 SCC 741, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:-

It does appear to us that Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of orders or directions to any authority or person, does not make any such difference between public functions and private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including, in appropriate case, any Government. Under clause (1) of Article 367, unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the legislature of the Dominion of India. "Person" under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountainhead of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a co-operative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him.

19. Apart from the above, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to our notice that in the instant case,the Respondent No.3-Federation, should be construed within the meaning of "Other Authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for the following reasons:-

i) Encouragement of Games and Sports is a State function coming within the functions of Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs,

ii) The Respondent No.3-Federation controls the game of Table Tennis in India and enjoys the monopolistic status, because nobody can play the competitive Table Tennis in India without the permission of the Federation,

iii) The functions of the Federation are of public importance on account of the State Governments as well as Union of India giving assistance in the form of State largesse.

iv) The game of Table Tennis involves public interest in the Country,

v) The Federation performs sovereign functions by selecting and sending the Table Tennis Teams to represent India, and similarly inviting teams of foreign countries to play with the Indian teams,

vi) Federation is considered by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to be the regulatory authority of Table Tennis is India,

vii) The Government of India allows large sums of foreign exchange by way of minimum bank guarantee to be paid to the foreign team and also releases foreign exchange towards the expenses of Indian team while boarding and lodging abroad,

viii) The laws pertaining to the game of Table Tennis are framed by the Federation in India,

ix) The Arjuna Award is granted by the Government of India on the recommendation of the Federation.

20. Apart from the above, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also brought to our notice that in all the cases wherein the Indian team had taken part in any of the tournaments abroad,the entire expenditure has been borne by the Government of India. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent No.3 Federation would be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

21. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also brought to our notice that from the year 1980 onwards, Respondent No.3-Federation has permitted various scholarship players numbering about 23 below 18 years of age to play, and out of them, at least 8 players were of International calibre, quite a number of them were National Champions and 3 of them were Arjuna Awardees. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the scholarship players will have to be encouraged at the national and international levels so as to bring honour to our Country and also to bring an excellence in the players. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also pointed out that the support by way of scholarship/stipend by the Banks and such other Institutions play a great role, especially in the minors so as to bring the best talent in them and later on to become internationally recognised players. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in fact, such scholarship/stipend provisions by Banks and other Institutions are highly laudable and the Respondent-Federation ought not to have blocked the same and stifled the growth of such young and upcoming talented players. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also pointed out that the aforesaid resolution is highly discriminating, unjust and irrational and hence it ought to be struck down.

22. After considering all the arguments of both sides, with regard to the first issue i.e. whether the writ would lie against the Respondent No.3 Federation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we find that the writ would lie and that the Respondent No.3 would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. We find from the facts stated hereinabove, that the Respondent No.3-Federation has monopolistic status and it is the sole authority to act on behalf of the Government of India in the International Tournaments and that the Government of India fully reimburses all the expenses during such tournaments. Without the approval of the Federation, no-one in India can play in any recognised tournaments or even represent India abroad in any of the tournaments. As pointed out hereinabove, the Respondent No.3-Federation is involved in the activities of public nature coming under the public law realm with the overall control of Government of India in its activities as has been pointed out in Paragraph 19 hereinabvove. As has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Rohtas Industries Limited's case, U.P.State Co-op.Land Development Bank Limited's case and Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case, we have no doubt that the writ would lie against the Respondent No.3-Federation and that the Respondent No.3 would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

23. As far as main issue is concerned, i.e. the impugned resolution whereby the Petitioner and such other stipend/scholarship players are prohibited in taking part in team events at national and international levels, we find the same to be totally arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and unjust. The Respondent No.3-Federation, in fact, ought to encourage such youngsters who are sponsored by the Banks and such other Institutions so as to improve the quality of Table Tennis players in India at the national and international level and to bring the best talent amongst the youth. One fails to understand that these players are allowed to take part at the district level and the regional level, but not in national and international level. One fails to see any logic or rationale behind such a distinction. In any event, the aforesaid purported resolution which is impugned in this petition, has not been incorporated as a rule anywhere in the rules of the Federation. The said resolution still remains as a resolution. We also find that the said resolution has not been strictly adhereed to and subsequent to 1998 some players have been allowed to play in contravention of the said resolution. Another vital aspect to be noted is that this Stipend/Scholarship is available only upto 18 years of age and not beyond that.

24. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the impugned resolution has to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the same is totally arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, irrational and unjust.

25. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A), (AA) and (AAA), which read as under:-

Prayer (A):- "That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for the record and proceedings in respect of the disqualification of the petitioner and after perusing the same this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order of Respondent No.3 dated 4th August, 2001 at Exh.D disqualifying the Petitioner from participating in the inter institutional tournament and/or any other table tennis tournament held through out the country."

Prayer (AA):- "That Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Resolution passed by Respondent No.3 in its 62nd Annual General Meeting held at Wagle Estate, Thane on 14th November, 1998 annexed hereto at Exhibit A-1 illegal, arbitrary, and malafide in nature."

Prayer (AAA):- "This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Resolution passed by Respondent No.3 in its 62nd Annual General Meeting held at Wagle Estate, Thane on 14th November, 1998 Exhibit A-1 hereto."

26. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate.

Petition allowed.