Telangana High Court
Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club vs The State Of Telangana on 6 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.15349 of 2026
THE 06TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
Between:
Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and 3 others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel representing Sri Mir
Omer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Venkatesh,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the entire record.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“…to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of
WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY COMMAND declaring the actions of
Respondents in refusing to register the petitioner club and its players
in B- Division 2 days leagues for the season 2026-27 onwards
conducted by respondent No. 2 as provided to other member clubs
thereby abhorrently cascading depriving the right of petitioner being
constituent general body member to participate in all matches
conducted by respondent no. 2 as manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory,
illegal, capricious, bad in law in violation of principles of natural
RY,J
WP_15349_2026justice & binding order of Ombudsman in Case No. 9 of 2026 dated
10-04-2026 as mandated in Judgment of Supreme Court reported in
2016 (8) SCC 535, besides being in violation to Article 14, 19(1)(C),
21 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to
act conduct function in accordance with byelaws of HCA, reports and
Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble
Court and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper…”
3. The petitioner-cricket club is affiliated to respondent No.2-
Association i.e. Hyderabad Cricket Association (‘HCA’). The petitioner
club is a registered society under Societies Registration Act. Likewise,
respondent No.2-HCA is a registered association under A.P. (Telangana
Areas) Public Societies Registration Act 1350 Fasli. The case of petitioner
club is that it is a general body member of respondent No.2-Association
and therefore, entitled to participate in all the matches conducted by
respondent No.2. Thus, the petitioner participated in B-Division 2 day
league Championship for the season 2025-26 arrayed in Group D. The
schedule of B-Division Leagues commenced on 07.07.2025 and continued
upto 05.09.2025. The last match was played by the petitioner club on
03.11.2025 with Future Star Cricket Club. Thereafter, on 14.02.2026,
respondent Nos.2 to 4 posted a WhatsApp group schedule matches
describing the same as relegation matches without prior intimation. On
20.02.2026, the elimination match of petitioner club was scheduled without
prior notice. On 19.02.2026, the petitioner received a communication from
2
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
the opponent cricket team, Continental Cricket Club, which has lost the
first relegation match scheduled on 17 and 18.02.2026 against New Blues.
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were requested to reschedule the match fixed on
20.02.2026 due to examinations and non-availability of players who were
out of station. Said communication was made through email dated
19.02.2026. Having received said email, respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not
communicate to the petitioners about postponement. Even before the
announcement of relegation matches and their schedule, due to non-
availability of players, the petitioner club filed W.P.No.35135 of 2025 for
registering new players to participate in B-Division 2 day league matches,
knockout, playoff and any other match or matches or tournaments
conducted by HCA by replacing them with any existing players, registered
participants played for petitioner club. The said order has not been
implemented. If the petitioner’s retention match is not conducted, by
rescheduling the same in compliance with orders in W.P.No.35135 of 2025
dated 20.02.2026, said act would cause irreparable loss and injury to the
players of the petitioner team.
4. The petitioner club insisted that the other team Continental which
also did not play the relegation match by seeking postponement has been
retained in the same league. Further, to the knowledge of petitioner club,
3
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
Zinda Tilismath Cricket Club and Crown Cricket Club have not
participated in B-Division 2 day league matches. Therefore, said teams
which did not participate ought to have been relegated instead of the teams
that have participated. The act of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is deliberate and
their refusal to conduct the retention match and their refusal to comply with
the orders of this Court in W.P.No.35135 of 2025 dated 20.02.2026 are
arbitrary.
5. The petitioner referred to the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.35135 of 2025, wherein a direction was given to the
respondent No.2 to register and replace players in accordance with
notification dated 26.06.2025 for participation in the remaining matches of
B-Division 2 day league championship 2025-26 including knockouts and
playoffs subject to eligibility conditions prescribed in the said notification.
The aforementioned was communicated by the petitioner to respondent
Nos.2 to 4 on 03.03.2026 and 04.03.2026 for implementation. However,
the said order is not implemented till date. On 27.03.2026, the petitioner
requested for scheduling of the match for the purpose of implementing
order dated 20.02.2026 in W.P.No.35135 of 2025. At that juncture,
respondent Nos.2 to 4 issued circular for payment of annual subscription
fee for the season 2026-27 on 07.03.2026. On said date, the petitioner paid
4
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
the subscription fee vide Cheque No.259127 dated 03.02.2026 and receipt
dated 24.02.2026 is issued.
6. Reference is made to orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.18413
of 2024 dated 12.09.2024, wherein Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao has been
appointed as Single Member Committee for the purpose of conducting
league matches for the cricket season 2025-26. Reference is also made to
Sri Justice R.M.Lodha Committee’s (‘Lodha Committee’) recommendation
incorporated by the Supreme Court, followed by the report of Sri Justice L.
Nageswara Rao. It is pleaded that the recommendations of the Lodha
Committee have been incorporated and inserted as Rule 40 in HCA by-
laws, wherein Ombudsman is the absolute sole authority to decide all
matters creating implied bar on Section 9 CPC and Section 23 of Andhra
Pradesh Societies Registration Act and Central Act, 1860. As per Rule 40
of byelaws of HCA, a retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or Chief
Justice of High Court, has to be the Ombudsman, an Ethics Officer shall be
retired Judge of High Court under Rule 39 of byelaws of HCA. The powers
of the Ombudsman include resolving any disputes of HCA and its
members, and the order of the Ombudsman shall be final and binding.
5
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
7. According to the petitioner, the Single Member Committee as
Supervisory Committee is as contemplated by Lodha Committee and
incorporated in the judgment in Board of Control of Cricket v. Cricket
Association of Bihar 1. The powers and functions of Apex Council elected
by the general body was never disturbed, but was placed under the function
of supervisor advisory under Single Member Committee. Apex Council
was directed to carry out their duties under the supervision of Single
Member Committees by order in W.P. No. 21904 for 2025. The single
member committee appointed by this Court made an internal
communication dated 31.03.2026 to the CEO of HCA and said
recommendation is sought to be implemented by the CEO and the Apex
Council without application of mind. As per Rule 24 of byelaws of HCA,
the CEO has to implement all the rules and regulations made by governing
body and Apex Council as to non-cricketing matters. The promotion and
delegation chart prepared by respondent Nos.2 to 4 does not contain
reasons for said promotion and relegation.
8. Respondent No.2 did not provide the data of teams with respect to
score, match sheet, position of teams, criteria, parameters applied, decision
resolution by competent authority, but is threatening to delegate petitioner
1
(2016) 8 SCC 535
6
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
club to C-Division without giving an opportunity of being heard in
violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the
Apex Council has to make a decision independently dehors the
communication dated 31.03.2026 as per its powers and powers bestowed
on it by the byelaws.
9. Referring to the communication dated 31.03.2026, the petitioner
emphasizes that two teams in A-Division League i.e. BDL and Income Tax
were relegated to B-Division, as they have not participated in the League
Season 2026. Two teams Zinda Tilismath and Crown Cricket Clubs have
not participated in B-Division leagues for the seasons 2025-26. In case the
teams which did not participate in the league matches from A-Division
were relegated to B-Division, the same principle has to be applied to Zinda
Tilismath Cricket Club and Crown Cricket Club, which also did not play
the leagues for the cricketing season 2025-2026. Further, Continental
Cricket Club which also did not play the relegation retention match is
retained in B-Division, but the petitioner is relegated to C-Division without
playing retention match and without implementing the order of this Court
in W.P.No.35135 of 2025 dated 20.02.2026. The petitioner is not provided
with key to register the players in B-Division leagues for the season 2026-
27, though subscription fee is received. The selections for Under-19 State
7
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
Team, Under-23 State Team, Ranji Trophy, TG20 League and IPL are all
considered from B-Division League, thus depriving the petitioner and its
players from B-Division without assigning reasons in arbitrary manner. In
the circumstances, the petitioner approached Ombudsman in Case No. 9 of
2026 and having heard the matter, the Ombudsman passed order dated
10.04.2026 directing the petitioner to be placed in parity in B-Division 2
days leagues along with other clubs. However, said order of the
Ombudsman is not implemented, therefore the writ petition is filed for
implementation of the order passed by Ombudsman.
10. Respondent No.2, for the purpose of opposing the writ petition,
relied upon copy of memo dated 04.05.2026, copy of report of Sri Justice
L. Nageshwara Rao dated 29.10.2023, copy of minutes of the 86th Annual
General Body Meeting 18.02.2024, copy of order passed in SLP(C).No.
6779 of 2021 dated 05.12.2023, copy of order in W.P.No.18413 of 2024
dated 12.09.2024, copy of order passed in W.P.No.21904 of 2025 dated
25.07.2025, copy of email, copy of HCA Press Notification dated
22.05.2023, copy of HCA Notification for A-1 Division Championship
2025-2026 dated 14.06.2025, copy of HCA notification for B-Division
Championship 2025-2026 dated 26.06.2025, copy of order passed in
W.P.No.18058 of 2025 dated 06.04.2026, copy of order passed in
8
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
SLP(C).No.6779. of 2021 dated 15.09.2023, copy of judgment in
Hyderabad Cricket Association v. Charminar Cricket Club 2, copy of
order in W.P.No.10001 of 2026 dated 27.04.2026, copy of order in
W.P.No.21904 of 2025 dated 24.04.2026, copy of order passed in
W.P.No.9744 of 2026, dated 31.03.2026, copy of order passed in
W.P.No.18058 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025, copy of B-Division Points Table
2025-26 and list of petitioners’ players.
Contentions of the petitioner:
11. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the retention match was
scheduled to be played on 20 and 21st of February, 2026 and the loser of
both rounds shall be relegated. At that point of time, there was a need for
implementation of orders of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.35135 of 2025 dated 20.02.2026 wherein the petitioner herein was
permitted to register and replace players in accordance with notification
dated 26.06.2025 for participating in the remaining matches of B-Division
2 day league championship 2025-26 including knockouts and playoffs.
Said order was never implemented as the HCA never gave consent for
replacement of players. In that context, the petitioner got notice issued for
contempt under Contempt of Court Act, 1971. On 19.02.2026, the
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 2564
9
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
Continental Cricket Club requested postponement of the match scheduled
to 20.02.2026. Similarly the petitioner club also requested for re-fixing of
the match scheduled for 20.02.2026. However, said re-fixing of match was
never done.
12. Further, the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the Lodha
Committee recommendations with respect to role of Ombudsman and the
decision of Ombudsman being final and binding on the parties. Further,
reference is made to judgment of the Supreme Court in the judgment
reported in Board of Control of Cricket (supra), wherein it is observed
that the report of the committee and the recommendations made in with
such modifications and clarifications have been set out in the body of the
judgment.
13. Further, in judgment in the case of M. Govind Reddy v. Hyderabad
Cricket Association3, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the
recommendations of Lodha Committee which to the extent accepted by the
Supreme Court, constitute law under Article 141 of Constitution are
binding on the BCCI and State Cricket Associations including HCA. As
per Sri Justice L. Nageshwara Rao Committee’s report, there are 22 teams
in 3-day league, 63 teams in 2-day league and 106 teams in 1-day league.
3
2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 703
10
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
Said report was placed before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 6779 of
2021.
14. Further, as per byelaws amended by the recommendations of Lodha
Committee and accepted by the Supreme Court, as per Rule 24 (1), the
CEO shall implement rules and regulations by governing body and Apex
Council as regards to non-cricketing matters. As per Rule 40 and 41 (3), the
order of Ombudsman is final and binding and shall come into force on
being pronounced and delivered. Reference is made to the order of
Ombudsman in Case No.9 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026 directing respondent
Nos.2 to 4 to retain the petitioner club in B-Division 2 day league.
15. Coming to the factual aspect, the case of the petitioner is that BDL
Cricket Club was relegated from A to B Division for not participating in
the league season for the year 2025-26. Similarly, Income Tax Cricket Club
was relegated from A to B Division for not participating in the league
season for the cricket season 2025-26. Crown Cricket Club and Zinda
Tilismath Cricket Club also did not participate in the season 2025-26, but
are sought to be added to B-Division contrary to the relegation of BDL and
Income Tax Cricket Clubs. Further, Continental Cricket Club did not
participate in the relegation match by addressing a letter to HCA. Said team
11
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
is retained in B-Division whereas the petitioner is sought to be relegated to
C-Division. For retaining Continental Cricket Club, the run rate is taken
into consideration whereas, run rate is not a rule for relegation, only loser
of both rounds has to be relegated.
16. To sum up, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that uniform
rules or pattern is not followed while relegating teams from A-Division to
B-Division and vice versa and B-Division to C-Division and vice versa,
apart from the fact that the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.PNo.35135 of 2025 not being implemented. In view of the
aforementioned facts, the matter was addressed by Ombudsman in Case
No.6 of 2026 and order dated 10.04.2026 has been passed. The petitioner
seeks implementation of said order relying upon the report of Sri Justice L.
Nageswara Rao, and judgment passed by this Court in M. Govind Reddy
(supra).
Contentions of respondent Nos.2 to 4:
17. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not venture
into the merits of the recommendation made by the Single Member
Supervisory Committee vide communication dated 31.03.2026. Further,
there is no dispute raised about the recommendations made by the Lodha
12
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
Committee or the report submitted by Sri Justice L. Nageswar Rao and its
acceptance by the Supreme Court with respect to role of Ombudsman and
finality of its decision. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 relied
upon the communication dated 31.03.2026 addressed by the Supervisory
Committee to the CEO of HCA. It is argued that the Supervisory
Committee has considered all the aspects and recommended relegation of
the petitioner club to C-Division. The retention of Continental Club in B-
Division is on the basis of run rate. The learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2 to 4 did not give any reason for inclusion of Crown Cricket Club and
Zinda Tilismath Cricket Club in B-Division, irrespective of the fact that
they have not played the league matches for the cricket season 2025-26.
Further, it is submitted that selection of the teams for B-Division has been
completed and the same has been intimated to the concerned parties. As per
the list posted on the website of HCA, which is produced at page number
481 of the material papers of the writ petition, already 63 teams have been
selected for B-Division and a schedule for conducting matches has already
been released and at this juncture, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
18. Further, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 relied upon the
judgment of this Court in W.P.No.10001 of 2026, wherein this Court held
that the Ombudsman does not have power to promote or relegate teams
13
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
from A-Division to B-Division or vice versa and said decision about
promotion and delegation has to be taken up by the Supervisory Committee
which shall exercise the powers of Single Member Committee. Therefore,
it is argued that the same analogy is applicable to the facts of the present
case and therefore, the order passed by the Ombudsman cannot be
implemented and the communication of the single member Supervisory
Committee to the CEO dated 31.03.2026 alone would be the basis for
promotion and relegation of teams from A to B – Divisions and vice versa
and B to C – Divisions and vice versa.
19. It is a point to be noted that the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2
to 4 did not address the issue of power of Ombudsman to deal with disputes
between HCA and its members as per Rule 40 (3), or the Single Member
Committee report of Sri Justice L. Nageswara Rao becoming law under
Article 141 of Constitution of India on account of said report being
accepted by the Supreme Court. There is no challenge with respect to the
aforementioned legal points raised by the learned counsel for petitioner, but
supported the recommendations of the single member Supervisory
Committee vide communication dated 31.03.2026.
14
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
Findings of the Court:
20. Having considered the submissions of both the respected counsel and
the voluminous record produced before this Court, there is no dispute with
respect to the backdrop of the disputes leading to appointment of Lodha
Committee and the recommendations made by said committee for the
purpose of handling the affairs related to conduct of cricket matches at
various levels. Further, there is no issue about the recommendations made
by Sri Justice L. Nageswara Rao Committee in his report which has been
accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and said recommendations
becoming law as per Article 141 of Constitution of India. There is also no
dispute about the affairs of HCA to be governed by the byelaws which are
amended in tune with the recommendations made by the Single Member
Committee of Sri Justice L. Nageswara Rao. It is in this context that the
present dispute between Hyderabad Cricket Association and the petitioner
cricket club has to be considered.
21. In terms of the factual situation existing on ground, the case of
petitioner is that it has been meted out with unfair treatment i.e. when some
of the players were not available, request was made for their replacement
and registration, and in that context, have approached a Co-ordinate Bench
15
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
of this Court vide W.P.No.35135 of 2025 and said writ petition was
allowed by the order dated 20.02.2026. In said order, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to register and replace players
and also directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to permit the same and also permit
the petitioner club to participate in remaining matches of B-Division,
whereas no such opportunity was given by respondent No.2.
22. While canvassing for retaining the petitioner’s club in B-Division,
the petitioner is reluctant to challenge the retainment of Continental Cricket
Club in B-Division, in spite of said team not playing the relegation match,
nor does it want to challenge the placement of Crown Cricket Club and
Zinda Tilismath Cricket Club, which have not participated at all in the
league matches of the cricket season 2025-26. The petitioner submits that
while not challenging the opportunity bestowed on any of the cricket clubs,
the petitioner wants it to be retained in B-Division, even in case the number
of teams increases more than 63 as has been stipulated by Sri Justice L.
Nageswar Rao Committee. It is submitted that when Continental can be
retained, when Crown Cricket Club and Zinda Tilismath Club can be
included in B-Division, though they did not play single match for the
previous cricketing season, the petitioner club which did participate in
some of the league matches cannot be relegated to C-Divisions solely on
16
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
the basis of run rate. More so when run rate is not the basis for promotion
and relegation. It was performance in the relegation matches which was
supposed to decide the promotion and relegation of teams from B-Division
to C-Division and vice versa.
23. In that context, it is emphasized that on account of pendency of
various matters before the Civil Courts under Section 23 of Societies
Registration Act, which was causing much delay in resolution of disputes,
the Justice Lodha Committee and the Sri Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Committee have recommended for resolution of said disputes through
Ombudsman. Since said recommendation has become law as per Article
141 of Constitution of India. The order of the Ombudsman has to be
implemented notwithstanding the fact that this Court in W.P.No.10001 of
2026 has held that the Ombudsman does not have power of promotion or
relegation of teams from one division to the other.
24. The case of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that this Court in W.P.No.10001
of 2026 has held that performance alone can be the criterion for deciding
the promotion and relegation of teams from one division to another. In that
context, the finding of this Court about Ombudsman not having the power
to promote or relegate is emphasized. Therefore, it is contented that the
17
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
Ombudsman order dated 10.04.2026 cannot be implemented and that the
communication dated 31.03.2026 of the Supervisory Committee alone can
be considered and therefore, there is no irregularity in relegation of the
petitioner club to the C-Division and therefore, opposed the petitioner’s
claim for retention in B-Division.
25. The facts borne by record are that the petitioner participated in the
league matches of the Cricket Season 2025-26. Similarly, Continental
Cricket Club also participated in the cricket matches. For standing at the
bottom of the teams in B-Division, HCA issued notification for conducting
relegation matches on 20.02.2026 and 21.02.2026. Four teams consisting of
the Deccan Arsenal i.e. the petitioner, Continental Cricket Club, Nizam
Cricket Club and New Blues Cricket Club were scheduled to play matches.
Continental Cricket Club played match with New Blues Cricket Club and
lost the match. Continental Club thereafter was scheduled to play cricket
match with the petitioner on 20.02.2026. This match could not be played at
the request of both the teams. As per email communications, both the teams
have requested for rescheduling of the relegation match. No evidence is
placed on record to show about the decision made by the concerned
authority about rescheduling of the match or refusal of the request. As per
contents of communication dated 31.03.2026, it is to be gathered that the
18
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
request of both the parties i.e. Continental Cricket Club and the Deccan
Arsenal Cricket Club for rescheduling the relegation match has been
rejected. Both the teams were expected to appear on the ground for playing
the relegation match on 20.02.2026, but the same did not materialize, as
none of the teams appeared to play the match. In said situation, the
Supervisory Committee on the basis of run rate retained Continental
Cricket Club in B-Division and relegated the petitioner to C-Division.
When this issue was presented before the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman
passed order dated 10.04.2026 directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to retain the
petitioner in B-Division, but the same was not complied with.
26. The important factor to be noted is that there is no explanation
forthcoming from respondent Nos.2 to 4 for inclusion of Crown Cricket
Club and Zinda Tilismath Cricket Club in B-Division, when they have not
played any league match for the cricketing season 2025-26. There is no
explanation forthcoming for whether run rate can be the basis for relegation
or promotion of teams from one division to the other. Further, no
explanation is forthcoming for non-implementation of the order of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.35135 of 2025 dated 20.02.2026.
On all these counts, the material placed on record or the arguments on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not convincing. Therefore, there are
19
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
sufficient grounds for the petitioner to feel aggrieved and for being treated
unfairly.
27. Leaving aside the factual aspects canvassed, coming to the rules
applicable to the present fact situation, the byelaws are undisputedly the
governing Rules for conducting the affairs of Hyderabad Cricket
Association and its members. The powers of Ombudsman under said
byelaws are also undisputed. The learned counsel for petitioner emphasized
on the powers of Ombudsman to resolve the disputes in the complaints
presented and the decision of Ombudsman being final and binding on the
Hyderabad Cricket Association and its members.
28. This Court completely aligns itself with the contention of the
petitioner about the powers of Ombudsman under Rule 40 and the finality
of decision made by Ombudsman. A case is sought to be made out by the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the basis of order passed by
this Court in the W.P.No.10001 of 2026 dated 27.04.2026. On that count,
there is a need to revisit Rule 40 (3) of byelaws of the Hyderabad Cricket
Association. The byelaws of Cricket Association leave no doubt
whatsoever about the power of Ombudsman to resolve the disputes
between Hyderabad Cricket Association and its members.
20
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
29. In the present case, there is a dispute between the decision of
Hyderabad Cricket Association, to relegate the petitioner to C-Division
while retaining Continental Cricket Club in B-Division on the basis of run
rate and include Crown and Zinda Tilismath Cricket Clubs, irrespective of
the fact that they did not play any league match for the Cricket season
2025-26, and application of performance as a parameter for relegation of
BDL and Income Tax Clubs from A-Division to B-Division. The dispute is
between HCA and its members. Therefore, the dispute squarely falls under
the purview of Ombudsman, and when said issue is presented before the
Ombudsman in Case No. 9 of 2026, and the order passed in that regard by
the Ombudsman, as long as it is inconformity with the recommendations
made by the Single Member Committee and Sri Justice L. Nageshwar Rao
Committee and the principles of natural justice, cannot be challenged.
30. The fact situation of the present case is not comparable to the fact
situation of the case presented in W.P.No.10001 of 2026. In said case, the
complaint before the Ombudsman was about the eligibility of one player by
name Chettineni Srihith on behalf of Rohit Cricket Club and the permission
given to Imperial Cricket Club to play a league match in a tournament.
When a complaint of such nature was presented before the Ombudsman,
the order passed was promotion of 4 teams from B-Division to A-Division,
21
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
exceeding the limit of 22 members in A-Division. The Ombudsman does
not have suo moto power of promotion or relegation of teams from one
division to another division. However, the Ombudsman does have power to
deal with the disputes in case there is any irregularity or illegality in
relegation of teams from one division to another division. In the instant
case, Ombudsman is not recommending promotion of one team from one
division to another, rather is dealing with a dispute of unfair or arbitrary
retention and relegation of the petitioner team to C-Division. Therefore, the
fact situation in the present writ petition and the fact situation in
W.P.No.10001 of 2026 are not comparable and the finding given in said
writ petition is not applicable to the facts of the present writ petition.
31. As per the recommendation made by Sri Justice L. Nageswara Rao
in his report, which forms the basis for the amendment of byelaws of
Hyderabad Cricket Association and as per said byelaws, the disputes
between Hyderabad Cricket Association and its members fall squarely
within the purview of Ombudsman and therefore, said entity has power to
make a decision in the regard. The Ombudsman has made a decision to
retain the petitioner in B-Division without affecting the rights of other
teams.
22
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
32. In that context, respondent No.2 emphasizes that already there are 63
teams and there is no place for inclusion of any other team and that the
schedule is already published for conducting matches. In case the HCA-
respondent no. 2 is unwilling to increase the number of teams in B-Division
from 63 then, a fair decision has to be made with respect to the petitioner
vis-Ã -vis the teams which are similarly placed i.e. Continental Cricket Club
which team did not play the relegation match and Crown Cricket Club and
Zinda Tilismath Cricket Club which did not play even a single match for
the cricket season 2025-26. Respondent No.2 association has to either
follow the order passed by the Ombudsman or make a fair decision with
respect to petitioner vis-Ã -vis those teams which are similarly placed are
even worse.
33. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent
No.2-HCA to implement the order of the Ombudsman dated 10.04.2026 or
alternatively, respondent No.2-HCA shall place the case of the petitioner
herein for reconsideration before the Supervisory Committee for being
continued in B-Division together with the case of the other teams which
were included in B-Division for the 2 day league championship for the year
2026-27, but were not part of the B-Division for the 2 day league
championship for the year 2025-26, by giving an opportunity to be heard to
23
RY,J
WP_15349_2026
all the teams concerned. The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There
shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 06.05.2026
Note:
Issue C.C. by 07.05.2026.
GVR
24
