2016 (3) TMI 1243 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Invalidates Suspension Orders, Amendments, and Terminations; Declares Contempt Petition Redundant

Netball Association of Chandigarh and another Versus Union of India and others

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the suspension orders against NAC illegal, quashing them, and invalidating the amendments to the ... Action of removal of the petitioner from membership of the NFI and appointment of the ad-hoc committee - Competition Director eligigiblity to pass order - Held that:- Competition Director, who had passed the order of removal of the petitioner from the membership of the NFI on an un-dated letter, had no jurisdiction much-less competence to pass such an order. However, the question would be as to whether the said action taken by the Competition Director has rightly been affirmed/ratified in the Annual General Meeting, which was held on 29.03.2015. The respondents did not include the item of removal of the petitioner from the membership in the agenda though it was an important agenda item which should have been specifically mentioned and circulated to the members so that they could have come prepared for deliberations and voting on the said agenda item and it could not have been taken up under the miscellaneous head because the miscellaneous head is only meant for those items which are emergent in nature and are not known at the time of preparation of agenda, whereas the Competition Director had handed over his letter dated 03.02.2015 to the NFI and the agenda for the Annual General Meeting was prepared on 08.03.2015, almost after a month, therefore, there was no reason for the respondents to have excluded the agenda item pertaining to removal of the petitioner from the membership of the NFI so that the General Council could have deliberated upon it before voting. The respondents have also violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing much-less show cause notice was given before its removal from the membership. Thus, the action of removal of the petitioner from membership of the NFI and appointment of the ad-hoc committee is totally illegal and hence, the fifth petition is also allowed, as prayed for. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the suspension order dated 19.05.2013 against NAC.2. Legality of the suspension order dated 02.10.2013 against NAC.3. Validity of amendments made to the Constitution and Bye-laws of NFI.4. Alleged contempt of court by Vagish Pathak and Hari Om Kaushik.5. Termination of NAC's membership and affiliation of a new unit.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Suspension Order Dated 19.05.2013 Against NAC:The first petition challenged the suspension of NAC on the grounds that the erstwhile President of NFI, Gurbir Singh Sandhu, did not submit a Utilization Certificate for funds provided by MYAS. The court noted that the suspension was based on allegations unrelated to NAC's functioning. The Executive Committee of NFI lacked the authority to suspend NAC and appoint an Ad-hoc Executive Committee without confirmation from the Council or Executive Committee in the next meeting, as required by Article 8 of the NFI Constitution. The suspension was thus deemed illegal, and the petition was allowed, quashing the suspension order dated 19.05.2013.2. Legality of the Suspension Order Dated 02.10.2013 Against NAC:The second petition addressed another suspension based on alleged irregularities during netball championships. The court found that the suspension was based on an amendment to Article 13, which was itself under challenge in the third petition. The amendment procedure did not comply with Article 17 of the NFI Constitution, which requires a one-year notice for proposed amendments. The court held the suspension order dated 02.10.2013 illegal and quashed it, allowing the petition.3. Validity of Amendments to the Constitution and Bye-laws of NFI:The third petition challenged various amendments made to the NFI Constitution and Bye-laws. The court found that the amendments were made without following the procedural requirements of Article 17, which mandates a one-year notice for proposed amendments and a nine-month circulation period for member associations. The amendments were declared illegal, and the petition was allowed.4. Alleged Contempt of Court by Vagish Pathak and Hari Om Kaushik:The fourth petition sought contempt proceedings against Vagish Pathak and Hari Om Kaushik for disobeying court orders by excluding Gurbir Singh Sandhu from a meeting despite a stay on NAC's suspension. Given the decisions in the first, second, and third petitions, the court found this petition redundant and disposed of it accordingly.5. Termination of NAC's Membership and Affiliation of a New Unit:The fifth petition challenged the termination of NAC's membership and the affiliation of a new unit. The court found that the Competition Director, Lalit Jeewani, lacked the authority to disqualify NAC. Additionally, the matter was not properly included in the Annual General Meeting agenda, violating procedural norms and principles of natural justice. The court declared the termination and the appointment of an Ad-hoc Committee illegal, allowing the petition.Conclusion:The court quashed the suspension orders against NAC, declared the amendments to the NFI Constitution and Bye-laws illegal, disposed of the contempt petition as redundant, and invalidated the termination of NAC's membership and the appointment of an Ad-hoc Committee.