Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) ALL the three petitions involving similar issues were heard together and are being decided finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, by this common order. The petition being SBCWP No. 10833/14 filed by the petitioners Rajasthan Cricket Association and others was heard as a lead case and the paper books have also been prepared and submitted in the said petition accordingly. The facts of the said petition therefore are taken for consideration for the sake of convenience. The petitioners had sought amendment in the said petition after filing of the replies by the respondents and as per the amended petition, following prayers have been sought in the said petition: - "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this writ petition and by issue an appropriate writ order or direction - (i) direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 to provide adequate security and protection to the office bearers and other executive committee members of petitioner No. 1 association so that they can take charge of the office of the association and day to day activities of the petitioner No. 1 association do not suffer. (ii) direct the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to restore the possession of RCA office situated in SMS Stadium, Jaipur to the office bearers of the petitioner No. 1 association. (iii) direct that an enquiry may be initiated against respondent No. 3 the then SHO Police Station Jyoti Nagar Jaipur for aiding and abetting the breaking of the office gates and allowing wrongful possession of the office of the petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 4 to 6 and various other unauthorized persons and anti social elements. (iv) direct that no interference shall be caused by respondent No. 3 to 6 in the working of the office bearers of the petitioner No. 1 association elected on 6.5.2014 and management of association by them. (iv -a) declare the purported requisition dated 24.7.2014 (Annexure -9), requisition dated 13.9.2014 (Annexure -10), purported notice dated 6.10.2014 (Annexure -12) and purported minutes of meeting dated 11.10.2014 (Annexure -11) to be illegal, bad in the eyes of law, void and non est and set aside the same. (v) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) CASE OF THE PETITIONERS 2(i). As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is a State Level Association registered under the Rajasthan Sports Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The petitioner No. 2 is the President of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the President of Nagaur District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 2 has filed the petition through his constituted attorney Mr. Mehmood M. Abdi, who is also the petitioner No. 5 herein. The petitioner No. 3 is the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of Dholpur District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 4 is the Honorary Treasurer of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of Alwar District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 5 is the Dy. President of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the President of Shriganganagar District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 6 is the Vice President of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of Bikaner District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 7 is the Vice President of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of Jhunjhunu District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 8 is the Vice President of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of the Churu District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 9 is the Joint Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of the Banswara District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 10 is the Joint Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of Shriganganagar District Cricket Association. The petitioner No. 11 is the Organising Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of the Bharatpur District Cricket Association and the petitioner No. 12 is the Organising Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Association and also the President of Jalore District Cricket Association. 2(ii). The respondent No. 1 is the State of Rajasthan and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, and the SHO, Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur respectively. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 4 was the elected Vice President of petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of Kota District Cricket Association, and the respondent No. 5 was the elected Joint Secretary of petitioner No. 1 Association and also the Secretary of Chittorgarh District Cricket Association, and the respondent No. 6 was the Secretary of Jaipur District Cricket Association, however now the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been suspended and placed under inquiry by the petitioner No. 1. 2(iii). It is further case of the petitioners that pursuant to the order dated 20.11.13 passed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 36140 of 2012, the elections of the Executive Committee of the RCA took place on 19.12.13 under the supervision of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.M. Kasliwal (Retd.) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Pathak (Retd.), appointed as the Principal Observer and the Observer respectively by the Apex Court. As per the result declared on 6.5.14 a certificate of election was given to the 21 members of the new executive body, whereby the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were elected as the office bearers and petitioner Nos. 5 to 12 as the other members. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were also elected as the office bearers amongst others. The said certificate of election dated 6.5.14 is produced by the petitioners as Annex. 2. 2(iv). It has been alleged by the petitioners that on 11.10.14 a mob of about 100 persons led by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, forcibly entered the office of RCA situated at S.M.S. Stadium, Jaipur at around 7.00 P.M., and the said mob broke down the electronic security controlled glass doors which, controlled the access to the first floor offices of the office bearers. The petitioner No. 9 and 10 therefore gave information to the Police Station, Jyoti Nagar. As per the further case of the petitioners, though the respondent No. 3 SHO, Police Station, Jyoti Nagar alongwith other police personnel had come to the site, and in whose presence the breaking of glass doors etc took place, he did not take any action against any miscreants and allowed acts of vandalism to continue. According to the petitioners, the said SHO also took the main key of the first floor offices from the petitioner No. 10, assuring him that the said key would be handed over to the Honorary Secretary of the Association. Since the petitioner No. 3, the Secretary of the Association had to go to Dholpur on that day, he left at around 3.00 P.M., and when he returned on the next day i.e. on 12.10.14 he went to the Jyoti Nagar Police Station alongwith the petitioner Nos. 9, 10 and 11 to take the keys of the office., however at that time the respondent No. 4 alongwith his supporters had already reached the Police Station and the respondent No. 3 instead of handing over the keys to the petitioner No. 3, handed over the same to the respondent No. 4. Thus, according to the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 had facilitated the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to occupy the office of RAC forcibly, who subsequently destroyed and removed the record and articles kept in the said office. According to the petitioners, they had by separate communications dated 14.10.14 brought to the notice of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 about the said incident and requested to take action on urgent basis, however no action was taken against the respondent No. 3 or respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2(v). It is further case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 4 had claimed that he had brought No Confidence Motion against the elected President Lalit Modi, i.e. the petitioner No. 2, the Secretary Somendra Tiwari i.e. the petitioner No. 3, the Treasurer Pawan Goyal i.e. the petitioner No. 4 and the Dy. President Mehmood Abdi i.e. the petitioner No. 5, in a meeting held on 11.10.14, and it was resolved in the said meeting to remove the said four petitioners as the office bearers and to appoint the respondent No. 4 Amin Pathan as the Officiating President, the respondent No. 5 Shakti Singh Rathore as the Officiating Secretary and the respondent No. 6 Mohammed Iqbal as the Officiating Treasurer. The copy of minutes of the said meeting alongwith the resolutions is produced as Annex. 11 to the petition. According to the petitioners, there was no extraordinary General Meeting ever convened and held as per the provisions of the Byelaws nor any requisition or notice of such meeting was ever given, and the said respondents had fabricated the documents signed by unauthorised and fictitious persons. Hence, the petition was filed. Case OF THE RESPONDENTS: 3(i). The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing separate replies. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the allegations against the respondent No. 3 Shri Vivek Singh, SHO, Police Station Jyoti Nagar have been denied by them and they have further contended that no key of RCA office was taken by the respondent No. 3 and that the said Officer was present on and during the day of incident at the site only with a view to maintain law and order situation. These respondents have produced on record the case diary dated 11.10.14 and 12.10.14 maintained by the respondent No. 3 SHO as Annexure -R/1. 3(ii). The respondent No. 4 has filed the reply raising preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there being specific provision contained under Section 16 of the said Act for referring the dispute touching the Constitution and Management Committee, to the arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the judicial intervention was totally barred under Section 5 of the said Arbitration Act. It has also been contended that the petitioners with a view to circumvent the said provision of arbitration had concocted the story for the purpose of filing the writ petition which is wholly misconceived and the petition was filed abusing the process of court. As regards the alleged incident of 11.10.14, it has been contended that on the date of declaration of the result of election on 6.5.14, the Apex Body of the Game of Cricket i.e. the Board for Control of Cricket in India had suspended the membership of the RCA, as Mr. Lalit Modi was declared as the elected President of RCA. Mr. Lalit Modi having been found guilty of serious misconduct and indiscipline, the BCCI vide the resolution dated 25.9.13 had already expelled him from the BCCI. According to the respondent No. 4, the said President Mr. Lalit Modi was staying in London for the last few years and had failed to discharge his duties towards the game of cricket and the Dy. President Mr. Mehmood Abdi, who was the resident of Mumbai and the Secretary Somendra Tiwari and the Treasurer Pawan Goyal were managing the affairs of RCA in an arbitrary manner and, therefore large majority of the members of RCA were not satisfied with the functioning of RCA. The majority of members therefore submitted requisition to the Secretary RCA on 24.7.14 for convening a general body meeting but the Secretary ignored the said requisition and therefore another requisition was given on 13.9.14 showing 'No Confidence' against all the members responsible, however no heed was paid to the said requisitions by the Secretary. The respondent No. 4 has produced the copies of the said requisitions as Annex. R -4/3 and R -4/4 respectively. According to this respondent under the peculiar circumstances, on 11.10.14, 22 members out of 33 members, which was equal to 2/3rd of total voting members had assembled, in response to an intimation given by the Joint Secretary, Mr. Shakti Singh the respondent No. 5 herein, and convened an extraordinary general meeting, and had passed special resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' unanimously to remove all the four office bearers i.e. the President Lalit Modi, Dy. President Mr. Mehmood Abdi, the Secretary Mr. Somendra Tiwari and the Treasurer Mr. Pawan Goyal. It has also been contended that the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and other persons who were the office bearers of 22 District Associations had come to Jaipur for the extraordinary general meeting on 11.10.14 and had unanimously approved the resolution in question. The copies of the affidavits of the said members have been produced collectively as Annex. R -4/6. According to the respondent No. 4, the said members had legal right to visit the RCA office and that the story of mob of 100 persons having come to the RCA office and broke down the doors etc. was absolutely a concocted story. It has been further contended that the petitioners had not filed any complaint against anybody and instead of taking action in accordance with law, the petition was filed with ulterior motives. Denying the allegations about the handing over the key of the RCA office by the SHO, it is contended that the SHO, Police Station, Jyoti Nagar was called by the petitioners themselves after the charge of officiating office bearers was assumed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in usual peaceful manner and the respondent No. 3 SHO had gone back after doing his duty. It is submitted that the special resolution was passed unanimously by 22 voting members out of total 33 members, which was the quorum required under Article 19 -A of the Byelawsl of the RCA, and therefore taking over the charge was merely a formality which was done in a peaceful manner. 3(iii). The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have also filed separate replies supporting the contentions raised in the reply filed by the respondent No. 4 and further contending inter alia that the 21 days notice was not given as the circumstances were emergent in nature. However, the notices were sent by hand and the members were also communicated through telephonic message. According to these respondents the petitioners were also sought to be given notice, however they refused to accept the same and refused to participate in the meeting. According to them nothing illegal or unlawful had happened in the RCA office on 11.10.14 and the petitioners had concocted the documents as well as the story with a view to abuse the process of law by filing the present petition. It has also been denied that on 13.10.14, 19 district cricket association had held a meeting and they had reposed confidence in the executive committee. According to them, the petitioners had shown fictitious members, who were not held to be the valid members by the concerned District Court and also by the Principal Observer Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.M. Kasliwal before holding the election on 19.12.13. The respondents have also filed additional replies after the amendment of the petition by the petitioners.
(3.) THE petitioners have filed the rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, reiterating the allegations made in the petition and further contending inter alia that the meeting dated 11.10.14 was not convened as per the Byelaws, as the concerned respondents had not sent the notices to the office bearers, executive members and the affiliated organisations as contemplated in Article 13(f) of the Byelaws. It is also contended that the members purporting to represent the districts shown in the said meeting, actually did not represent the respective district cricket associations and hence neither the quorum nor the 3/4th majority was present to carry out the No Confidence Motion. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have also filed their sur -rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners.;