ARUN MISHRA, J. - (1.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to declare the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Ordinance, 2004, which was later-on substituted by the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 as unconstitutional, void and ultra vires the Constitution. Prayer has also been made to restrain the State Government or the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies from interfering in the working of the Rajathan Cricket Association and also from enforcing the provisions of the Act of 2005.
(2.) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that in the instant writ petition the original petitioners-Rajasthan Cricket Association (for short, 'the RCA') and Others had challenged the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Sports Association (Registration, Recognition and Regulation) Ordinance, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Ordinance of 2004') and sought directions for restraining the State Government or the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies for the State from interfering in the working of the petitioner-RCA and from enforcing the provisions of the said Ordinance of 2004. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, had dismissed the petition vide the order dated 20.12.2004. The said order came to be challenged by Shri Kishore Rungta, the then Secretary of the RCA by filing civil appeal being No.1206/2005 before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the said appeal before the Supreme Court, the said Ordinance of 2004 came to be replaced by the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 2005'), which received the assent of His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan on 13.3.2005 and was published in the Official Gazette on 14.3.2005. In the meantime, the management and control of the RCA was also changed. The Apex Court, thereafter, disposed of the said civil appeal vide the order dated 20.1.2011. The Apex Court interalia passed the following order:- "xxx we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for giving specific findings on the issues raised or may be canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties before the High Court. During the pendency of this appeal, number of interlocutory Applications have been filed. For ensuring the expeditious disposal of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all those applications as not pressed, except applications for impleadment of Kamal Morarka and Tonk District Cricket Association with liberty to the parties to file any application for any interim relief, if it is so advised. This appeal has been pending over five years. Apart from that, the issues raised in this appeal have far reaching implications. Therefore, we request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court to ensure that this appeal is disposed of at an early date, in any event, within six months from the date of communication of this order. Applications for impleadment of Kamal Morarka and Tonk District Cricket Association are allowed and these applicants are impleaded as respondent nos.6 and 7 respectively. We request the High Court to hear the appellant-Kishore Rungta and respondent nos.1 to 7 herein and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. All questions of law raised are kept open. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs." In view of the said order passed by the Apex Court, the said appellant before the Apex Court Shri Kishore Rungta was permitted to pursue the present petition as the petitioner; and Shri Kamal Morarka and Tonk District Cricket Association were permitted to be impleaded as respondents No.6 and 7 respectively. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that since the Ordinance of 2004 was already replaced with certain modifications, by the Act of 2005, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Apex Court, an oral request was made by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Paras Kuhad for the petitioner to treat the challenge in the petition as the challenge of the validity of the Act of 2005, in place of the Ordinance of 2004. The said prayer was accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the submissions were made by the respective learned counsels for the parties with regard to the validity of the Act of 2005, without being technical in the matter. It is also pertinent to note that the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 31 of the said Ordinance of 2004 had made the Rules namely, Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2004"). Reliance was placed on the said Rules during the course of arguments by the learned counsels for the parties, however, it appears that the said Rules of 2004 were framed under the Ordinance of 2004, which have already been replaced by the Act of 2005. Since consequences fell at the time when Ordinance of 2004 as well as Rules framed thereunder were in force, presently we have considered the issues involved accordingly. It is the case of the petitioner that the RCA was constituted as an Association by a group of individuals in the year 1933 with the object of promoting the game of cricket in Rajasthan. RCA is affiliated to and is full member of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (for short "the BCCI"). RCA had 33 district cricket clubs as its members and in addition to that, RCA had 63 other individual members falling under different categories inducted in the period of last 70 years. The function of the RCA was governed by its own Memorandum and Rules and Regulations. The Rules specified the objects, categories of members, eligibility for membership, control over the rights to induct members including District Association as members, the powers of management committee, the mode of election thereto, the voting and contesting rights of the members, dispute resolution etc. The governance and functioning of RCA was to be decided by its members alone as per its constitution. It is further case of the petitioner that vide Notification dated 18th August, 2004, the Governor of Rajasthan promulgated the Ordinance of 2004, later on, substituted by the Act of 2005. Aggrieved by the promulgation of Ordinance of 2004, which has been substituted by the Act of 2005, the writ petition has been pursued contending inter-alia that the provisions of the Act of 2005 are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution; the Act of 2005 infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to form association; it imposes unreasonable restriction on the exercise of fundamental right conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution; Sections 6, 8, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act of 2005 are unconstitutional, illegal, void and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 300A of the Constitution of India; Sections 21, 22, 24 and 26 of the Act of 2005 are unconstitutional, inasmuch as they empower the Registrar to disqualify the Sports Association, to impose unfair conditions and to take over the management of the Sports Association; the Ordinance of 2004 could not have been promulgated and enacted as no immediate circumstances existed for such promulgation of ordinance; the RCA has fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(c) to form association to manage its business and to continue as Association fulfilling its objects with persons of its choice; restrictions imposed by the Act of 2005 are arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal; Registrar has been given uncanalized, unguided and uncontrolled power to refuse registration under section 6, to call for records under Section 20, to make disaffiliation under Section 21, to make enquiry under Section 23, and to make disqualification under Section 24; the provisions of Section 8 are also ultra vires the Constitution as it imposes unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner and seeks to dictate the discretion of the Association in framing its bye laws; there may be some games which due to lack of infrastructure or involvement of heavy expenditure, are not capable of being provided to every section of society; Sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the Act of 2005 have also been questioned on the ground that the provisions are harsh and unenforceable; the Act of 2005 has made serious inroads on the rights vested to establish Association of choice and to administer them; the Act is colourable exercise of power by the State Government. In the return filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, it is contended that the petitioner had challenged the validity of the Ordinance of 2004 and not the Act of 2005, which was promulgated, thus, the petitioner did not come to this Court with clean hands; the Act of 2005 has been enacted under Entry 33 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India; provisions of the Act of 2005 contain no restriction in the formation of any association; the Act of 2005 has been enacted to eradicate various mischiefs and to enable association to work in a scientific method so that the sports and games activities are developed at District and State level so as to develop and prepare young talent for National and International level competitions; the Act of 2005 is in consonance with the National Sports Policy, 2001, National Youth Policy 2003, the Constitution of Indian Olympic Association and various other material relating to development of physical fitness and sports filed collectively as Annex.R/2 to R/4 to the return; Article 51A(j) of the Constitution casts duty on every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievements; sports and participation in sports activities help individual to develop character and it also offers important health benefits; sports is also emerging as a profession; sports event has its economics in sports tourism; State's performance in the national and international events was not upto mark; sports bodies are either not registered or are registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1958"), which does not provide for effective regulatory mechanism; the Act of 2005 aimed at advancing, encouraging and promoting sports and games activities in the State of Rajasthan at State, District and lower level; the Act of 2005 intends to make Association to operate in a representative character and that sports units at all levels get equal opportunity of representation at District, State, National and International levels so as to achieve excellence in the field of sports; there is no discrimination; no restriction has been imposed to form association; provisions of the Act of 2005 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. Respondent no.7 has also filed reply in which it is contended that the petition is not maintainable; original ordinance has changed its character; there is legislative competence of the State to enact the Act of 2005; right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution does not carry with it a concomitant right that unions formed shall achieve their object such that any interference to any such law would be unconstitutional unless it could be justified by Article 19(4); there is no take over of property of any association by the State; right to form association has not been taken away; provisions of the Act of 2005 cannot be said to be ultra vires the Constitution; earlier the management of the RCA was in the hand of the petitioner's family and after promulgation of the Ordinance of 2004 substituted by the Act of 2005, different persons were elected and details of officer bearers including President, Secretary and Treasurer elected from 1987 till 2002-03 have been mentioned in the reply; details of expenses incurred on cricket activities by RCA before 2004 and after 2004 till 2009-10 have also been given which show that expenses have been enhanced after coming into force of the Act of 2005; number of international matches and tournaments organized in Rajasthan before 2004 were limited and after 2004, the number has gone up very high and comparative details have been given in the reply; Rajasthan has won the Ranji Trophy for the first time in 2010-11 in a period of 77 years; Rajasthan under 16 and under 14 teams have recorded unprecedented success in the last two years which indicates healthy state-of-affairs of Rajasthan cricket; nepotism has come to an end due to provisions contained in the Act of 2005.
(3.) S/Shri Paras Kuhad, Senior Advocate, with Sunil Nath, Vivek Dangi , Priyanka Nahata and Vishal Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is violation of the provisions contained in Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India; Act of 2005 takes away the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c); it puts restrictions on the exercise of right conferred under Article 19(1)(c); State could have acted within the parameter of Article 19(4) and none of the grounds envisaged under Article 19(4) is available; law enacted by the State is saved by the provisions of Article 19(4) and considering the ambit and sweep of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c), right to carry on objectives is part and parcel to right to form association, which has been taken away by the Act of 2005; Act of 2005 constitutes restrictions on exercise of right under Article 19(1)(c) and these restrictions could not have been imposed within Article 19(4) and could not be said to be reasonable restrictions. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per Section 3 of the Act of 2005, every Sports Association other than a Primary Sports Body is required to be registered under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Section 5 provides that all State Level Associations enlisted in Schedule B and their affiliated District Level Sports Associations shall apply for registration of the Association under the Act of 2005 with the documents specified in Schedule A. Similarly, Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005 provides that no sports association shall be entitled to use the description 'Rajasthan' or use the name of a District as part of its name or undertake any Sports activity which results in representing the State of Rajasthan or a District, as an affiliated unit of any National Federation, Board or Association purporting to represent India, or in any other manner whatsoever, unless such Sports Association is registered as a State Level Sports' Association or a District Level Sports Association under the Act of 2005. Section 26(1) provides that an Association undertaking games or sports activities at State or District level and is already registered under the Act of 1958 shall be entitled to opt to be registered and recognized under the Act of 2005 and to receive a certificate thereof on application to the Registrar and within 30 days from the date of commencement of the Act of 2005 shall amend its bye-laws to bring it in conformity with the Act of 2005 and sub-section (2) of Section 26 further provides that if no such application is made within thirty days of the commencement of the Act of 2005 or if the bye-laws of the Sports Association covered under sub-section (1) are not brought in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 2005 at the expiry of thirty days from the commencement of the Act, the Executive Body of the Sports Association shall be superseded by the Registrar and an Ad hoc Executive Committee shall be appointed to manage the affairs of the Sports Association. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is obligation under the Act of 2005 read with Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 2004 framed under the Ordinance of 2004 substituted by the Act of 2005, which provides that Sports Associations and District Associations can be named only in the manner set out in Rule 3(1) and 3(2); all Sports Associations operating at the level of State or District have to necessarily use as part of the name, the description 'Rajasthan' or that of the concerned District and by virtue of Rule 3(3) they were prohibited from adopting any name which did not carry the description Rajasthan/concerned District, and Section 25 (2) in turn states that whichever association uses such name shall have to necessarily register itself under the Act of 2005. Thus, any Sports Association undertaking the sports activities is under obligation to apply for registration dependent upon such activity resulting and representing the State of Rajasthan, compulsory coverage becomes absolute; every Sports Association operating at the level of District of State Headquarters is bound to organize tournaments between players of different Districts; it is impossible to conceive of an activity of a Sports Association which will not fall within Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005; the RCA was mentioned at item no.13 of the Schedule B and thus, it was statutorily obliged to apply for registration; the petitioner has also challenged section 3 of the Act of 2005 which provides that Sports Association shall have to be registered under the Act of 2005. ;