ADVERTISEMENT
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rajasthan Chess Association vs Ashok Kuamr Bhargava Son Of Late Shri T. … on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 288/2026
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13261/2025
Rajasthan Chess Association, Through Secretary, Rajasthan
Chess Association, B-9/634, Chitrakoot Scheme, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur-302021.
----Appellant
Versus
1 Ashok Kuamr Bhargava Son Of Late Shri T. N. Bhargava,
Aged About 69 Years, Resident B-9/634, Chitrakoot
Scheme, Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302021 (Hony Secretary,
Rajasthan Chess Association, Jaipur)
2 Mahaveer Ranka Son Of Late Shri Mohan Lal Ranka,
President, Rajasthan Chess Association, Near Circuit
House, Raj Vilas Colony, Bikaner.
3 Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nehru Sahkar Bhawan,
Hawa Sadak, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior
Advocate assisted by Ms. Alankrita
Sharma, Mr. Madhusudan Rajpurohit,
Mr. Yogesh Kala & Mr. Harshil Bansal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote with
Mr. Dikshant Jain & Mr. Ashvini Raj
Tanwar
Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG assisted by Mr.
Hardik Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
16/04/2026
REPORTABLE
1. Instant D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) is preferred by the
appellant, aggrieved from the order dated 13.03.2026
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (2 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
passed in Writ Petition No. 13261/2025 by the learned Single
Judge of this Court, whereby the effect of the election held
on 04.03.2026 was stayed and the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies was directed to appoint an Administrator to look
after the day-to-day functioning of the Association.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that Rajasthan Chess Association,
(hereinafter referred as "the Association"), is a State-level
sports body registered under the provisions of The Rajasthan
Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of
Association) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
2005"), and has conducted elections on 04.03.2026 wherein
present appellant was elected as Honorary Secretary. He
further submitted that the record of the proceedings has
been placed on record to show that the election was
conducted in a free and fair manner, in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 2005 and the Rules and Bye-laws
made thereunder. He further submitted that Respondent No.
1, who was Honorary Secretary for term 2021-2025 was
suspended by the erstwhile Association, filed a writ petition
to stall the elections to be held after completion of his term.
He also submitted that an interim stay was initially obtained
to stall the elections, but after modification on 25.02.2026, a
liberty was granted to conduct election.
3. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that pursuant to said
liberty, the General Body Meeting was convened and the
election was conducted on 04.03.2026. He also submitted
that after the election, the elected body has taken over the
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (3 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
charge of the Association on 04.03.2026 itself. He further
submitted that on 13.03.2026, the learned Single Judge has
stayed the effect of the election held on 04.03.2026, and
also appointed an Administrator, that too beyond the scope
of the writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Advocate has further placed reliance upon
judgment in the case of Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors.
Vs. Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti
Limited and Ors. reported as 2026 INSC 347 and
submitted that dispute relating to internal management,
governance or electoral process of any society do not, as a
matter of course, attract writ jurisdiction because such
societies owe their incorporation to a statute. He further
submitted that a specific mechanism is provided under the
"Act of 2005" for governance of sports bodies and filing a
writ petition in such a matter is contrary to provision of law.
He further referred Section 16 of the Act of 2005 and
submitted that any dispute relating to election of Association
is required to be resolved through conciliation and arbitration
and in such circumstances writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He also
submitted that the learned Single Judge has decided the writ
petition by granting entire relief as interim measure to the
petitioner; hence, the special appeal, as provided under Rule
134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, is filed and
same is maintainable before this Hon'ble Court. He also
submitted that the appellant was elected as Honorary
Secretary and the elections have already come into effect as
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (4 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
soon as the declaration was made and he has a right to
defend a proceeding instituted by respondent No.1-writ
petitioner.
5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, and submitted that
Learned Single Judge on noticing that there was serious
disobedience of the interim order passed by the non-
petitioners, then order dated 13.03.2026 was passed, in
their presence. He also submitted that the interim orders,
passed in the matter were interpreted by the learned Single
Judge, which led to the passing of the order dated
13.03.2026. He further submitted that the appellant has no
locus to file the instant Special appeal, as an appeal from an
interim order in a writ petition is not maintainable, and the
appellant has no locus after the stay on the effect of election
held on 04.03.2026 and appointment of an Administrator. He
also submitted that the Election Officer is the real brother of
the appellant, and when there is an element of biasness and
favoritism, the election conducted on 04.03.2026 cannot be
said to be fair and transparent. He further submitted that
several complaints were made by the writ petitioner against
the erstwhile President of the Association, and an inquiry
was conducted by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
wherein it was found that several irregularities were
committed by the erstwhile Association.
He also submitted that the Election Officer is guilty of
committing illegality and due to malafide and bias, the
election proceedings are contrary to "Act of 2005".
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (5 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-
writ petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment Zee
Telefilms Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
reported as (2005) 4 SCC 649, has submitted that the
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only
way out to seek remedy where no specific power is provided
under the "Act of 2005". He also submitted that writ petition
is filed against the non-action of non-petitioner No.3-
Registrar, Co-operative Societies and same is evident from
the prayer of the writ petition. He also submitted that
despite inquiry in process, the President of erstwhile
Association has issued an election notice which was also
challenged by the writ petitioner on ground of authority and
competency. He further submitted that appellant has not
challenged earlier order passed by learned Single Judge,
therefore Writ Appeal is not maintainable.
7. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 (writ petitioner) and learned AAG appearing on behalf
of respondent No.3.
8. The material on record indicate that the appellant has filed
an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking
additional documents on record. The documents are filed to
provide for proper adjudication of dispute and are relevant
for the just decision of the instant case. Therefore, the
application is allowed and documents are taken on record.
(A) Maintainability of Special Appeal against interim
order
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (6 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
9. Instant Special Appeal (Writ) has been filed under Rule 134
of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and Rule 134 is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
134. (i) Appeal to the High Court from
Judgment of Judges of the Court:- An appeal
shall lie to the High Court from the Judgment or a
final order (not being a Judgment passed in the
exercise of appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a
decree or order made in the exercise of appellate
Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the
superintendence of the High Court and not being an
order made in the exercise of revisional Jurisdiction
and not being a sentence or order passed or made
in the exercise of the power of superintendence or
in the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge
of the High Court.
(ii) Special appeal. - A person desiring to
prefer a special appeal from the judgment of the
Single Judge shall present a duly stamped
memorandum of appeal within sixty days from the
date of such judgment. Where such appeal is
presented after the period mentioned above, it shall
be accompanied by an application supported by an
affidavit explaining the cause of delay and it shall
be rejected unless the appellant satisfied the court
that he had sufficient cause for non preferring the
appeal within the aforesaid time.
The memorandum of appeal shall be drawn-
up in accordance with Rules 125, 130 and 131 of
this Chapter and shall be accompanied by a certified
copy of the judgment or order appealed from
alongwith two extra typed copies of the judgment
or order.
10. Writ Petition No. 13261/2025 was filed by Respondent
No. 1 (the writ petitioner) with the following prayer:-
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the
writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed and -
(a) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or
direction in nature thereof directing the Registrar
Cooperative Society to conclude the inquiry
initiated vide order dated 10.6.2023 and regarding
which points for determination have been
communicated to petitioner vide communication
dated 23.7.2024, in a timebound manner
preferably within 30 days.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (7 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
(b) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or
direction, the election notice issued by the
respondent no.1 be declared null and void as the
same in violation of communication dated
03.12.2024 issued by Joint Registrar (Rules).
(c) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature thereof, the Registrar
Cooperative be directed to conclude the inquiry
and appoint ad-hoc committee for convening fresh
election of Rajasthan Chess Association.
(b) Any other appropriate order or direction, which
the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
11. An interim order dated 13.03.2026 passed in the said writ
petition is under challenge before this Court, whereby the
learned Single Judge has passed the following direction,
which affects the rights of the appellant:-
"Taking into consideration the aforesaid peculiar
facts, the Court deems just and proper to stay the
effect of the election held on 04.03.2026 by the
Returning Officer nominated by the erstwhile
association and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies
shall appoint an administrator for day to day
functioning of the association."
12. A special appeal from an order passed by a learned Single
Judge is maintainable, if the interim order decides the
substantial rights of any person. This issue was considered
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Bhagwati Devi vs. Komal Devi & Ors., D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 562/2013, judgment dated
29.05.2013, and it was observed as under.
Qua the aspect of maintainability of the appeal in
the context to Rule 134 of the High Court Rules, we
have been led, amongst others, to the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shah Babulal
Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and anothers [AIR 1981
Supreme Court 1786] as well as of this Court in
Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Alok
Kotahwala and Ors. [2013(2) WLC (Raj.) 381].Their
Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex court in Shah Babulal
Khimji (supra) while dwelling on the scope, ambit
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (8 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
and purport of the word "Judgment" appearing in
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High
Court and after a detailed survey of the legal
propositions pertaining thereto observed in
paragraph 119(2) as hereunder:
"Para 119(1).........
(2) That the interlocutory order in order to be a
judgment must contain the traits and trappings of
finality either when the order decides the questions
in controversy in an ancillary proceedings or in the
suit itself or in a part of the proceedings.
This observation, ipso facto, is suggestive of the fact
that an interlocutory order, in such eventualities, as
mentioned can be construed to be a "judgment". A
coordinate Bench of this Court in Jaipur Metro Rail
Corporation (supra) had held an appeal from an
order of the learned Single Judge staying land
acquisition proceedings and giving liberty to the
State to restart the proceedings maintainable
holding that such an order amounted to a
"judgment" or a "final order". Their Lordships in
reaching this conclusion, amongst others, had also
taken note of the decision of the Apex Court in Shah
Babulal Khimji (supra) In the decision of Jaipur
Metro Rail Corporation (supra), reference was also
made to the judgment in Jugal Kishore Paliwal vs.
S.Sat Jit Singh [(1984)1 SCC358], where the order
of the learned Single Judge refusing amendment of
the written statement at the time of framing issues
held to be appealable. In the background of the
facts leading to the filing of the appeal and on a
consideration of the judicial pronouncements as
above, we are of the view that the interim direction
passed by the learned Single Judge permitting the
respondent No.1 to remain, inspite of her declared
disqualification by the Election Tribunal, in the office
of the Sarpanch is one of moment affecting the
rights of the parties besides not countenanced by
section 25 of the Act and thus, can be considered to
be a final order for the purpose of appeal under Rule
134 of the High Court Rules. This is also deductible
from the fact that the arrangement, which has been
made, is not limited by time but had been made
subject to the final decision of the writ petition. We
are, thus, not inclined to sustain the plea against
the maintainability of the appeal. In the result, the
appeal is allowed. The direction of the learned Single
Judge to permit the respondent No.1 to continue
inthe office of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Vijaypura, Tehsil Thanagali District Alwar is
interfered with. The charge of the said office would
now be handed over by strictly following the process
with regard thereto as contemplated under section
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (9 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
25 of the Act. This would be done within a period of
one week from today.
13. Even in the case of Dharam Chand Vs. Kishan Gopal and
Ors, D.B. Special Appeal No. 929/2006, decided on
19.11.2010, a Coordinate Division Bench has also
considered the provision and held that, except for orders
passed while exercising supervisory writ jurisdiction, the
order is appealable. The intra-court appeal is not
maintainable where an order is passed by learned Single
Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. After considering the provision under Rule 134 of the "Rules
of 1952" and the legal position as interpreted from time to
time by this Court, an interim order, if it decides the
substantial right of any party, then a special appeal from
such interim order passed by a learned Single Judge is
maintainable.
The only test is whether the characteristics of the order
amount to grant of final relief, though the same is
interlocutory in nature.
15. The order dated 13.03.2026 indicate that not only the effect
of election held on 04.03.2026 was stayed, but the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, was also directed to appoint
Administrator for day-to-day functioning of the association,
and pursuant to the order dated 13.03.2026, the
Administrator was appointed by the Registrar on 24.03.2026.
Thus, the interim order dated 13.03.2026 qualifies the test
as mentioned hereinabove, and this special appeal is
maintainable.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (10 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
(B) Scope of Writ under Article 226 of Constitution in
election matters under the Act of 2005.
16. Now comes the interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Admittedly, the association is governed
by the "Act of 2005". The "Act of 2005" was enacted to
provide registration, recognition, and regulation of sports
associations and to facilitate and regulate the activities of
the sports associations in the State of Rajasthan.
17. Section 13 under Chapter III provides for elections,
whereas Section 14 provides for voting rights and Section 15
for eligibility for contesting elections. Sections 13, 14, and 15
are reproduced as under:-
13. Elections.- (1) Election of the Executive Body of
a State Level Sports Association shall be held in the
presence of an Observer of the Rajasthan State Sports
Council. Election of the Executive Body of a District Level
Sports Association shall be held in the presence of Observer
of its State Level Sports Association and Observer of the
District Sports Council.
(2) On conclusion of the election of the Executive
Body of a Sports Association, the election officer shall issue
a certificate, duly countersigned by the Observer(s) giving
the names and addresses of the elected members. On
issuance of such certificate the elected Executive Body shall
take charge of the Sports Association. The election officer
shall send the copies of such certificate to the Registrar and
the Rajasthan State Sports Council.
14. Voting right-- (1) Every member of a Primary
Sports Body shall have the right to cast one vote in the
election of its Executive Body.
(2) Each affiliated Primary Sports Body shall have the right
to cast one vote on behalf of that Primary Sports Body for
the election of the Executive Body of a District Level Sports
Association.
(3) Each affiliated District Level Sports Association shall
have the right to cast one vote on behalf of that District
Level Sports Association for the election of the Executive
Body of a State Level Sports Association.
(4) No individual member shall have a right to cast vote for
the election of the Executive Body of a District Level Sports
Association or a State Level Sports Association.
(5) Procedure for determining the authorization of persons
for the purpose of casting a vote on behalf of a Sports
Association may be as prescribed in the bye laws of a Sports
Association.
15. Eligibility for contesting elections. (1) All
individual members are eligible to contest the elections of a
Primary Sports Body.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (11 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
(2) Elected Office Bearers of all affiliated Primary Sports
Bodies are eligible to contest the elections of a District Level
Sports Association.
(3) Elected Office Bearers of all affiliated District Level
Sports Associations are eligible to contest the elections of a
State Level Sports Association.
(4) Anyone contesting an election must possess the
qualifications prescribed in Schedule C of this Act on the
date of notification of the elections.
18. Section 16 of the "Act of 2005" under Chapter IV
"Settlement of Disputes" provides for conciliation and
arbitration, in case any dispute arises touching the
Constitution, management activity, election or claim to
affiliation of any Sports Association. In case of dispute, same
would be adjudicated under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.
19. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act itself provides a legal
framework for efficacious dispute resolution through the
arbitration mechanism. While enacting the "Act of 2005" the
Legislature kept this object in its mind and enacted provision
for resolution through arbitration mechanism. In normal
circumstances, a writ jurisdiction is not exerciseable in
matter of arbitration.
20. In case of Bhaven Construction vs Exe Engineer Sardar
Sarovar Narmada reported as AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 6,
a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court after
considering judgment in case of M/s Deep Industries
Limited Vs. ONGC (2019) SCC Online SC 1602 and P.
Radha Bai Vs, P. Ashok Kumar (2019) 13 SCC 445, has
observed as under:-
In view of the above reasoning, we are of the
considered opinion that the High Court erred in utilizing its
discretionary power available under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution herein. Thus, the appeal is allowed and
the impugned Order of the High Court is set aside. There
shall be no order as to costs. Before we part, we make it
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (12 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
clear that Respondent No. 1.herein is at liberty to raise
any legally permissible objections regarding the
jurisdictional question in the pending Section 34
proceedings.
21. In case of Ram Chandra Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Roop
Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Limited and
Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and observed as
under:-
14.2. Conversely, disputes which pertain purely
to the internal management, governance or
electoral processes of co-operative societies do
not, as a matter of course, attract writ
jurisdiction merely because such societies owe
their incorporation to a statute. The existence
of a statutory framework regulating such
societies does not by itself convert internal
disputes into matters of public law. The
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in
such cases must therefore be tested on well-
established principles, including the nature of
the right asserted, the character of the duty
alleged to have been breached, and the
availability of an efficacious alternate statutory
remedy.
However, the mere existence of regulatory or
supervisory control, howsoever extensive, is
not determinative. Such control must be of a
degree that fundamentally alters the character
of the body. In the absence of such indicia,
disputes which are essentially private or
internal in nature fall outside the ambit of
judicial review under Article 226.
14.5. The question whether the respondent
societies can be regarded as "State" must be
examined in light of the tests laid down in Ajay
Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi17, which
include indicia such as deep and pervasive
State control, financial dependence, and
functional integration with governmental
activities. These principles have been applied
to co-operative bodies in General Manager,
Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Satrughan
Nishad and others18, where this Court held
that mere regulatory supervision or limited
State participation does not suffice to confer
the status of an instrumentality of the State.
Tested on these parameters, the respondent
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (13 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
Unions cannot be held to be "State" within the
meaning of Article 12.
14.9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
are of the considered opinion that the writ
petitions ought not to have been entertained in
the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.
15. Even otherwise, the writ petitions were not
liable to be entertained in view of the express
statutory scheme and the availability of a
comprehensive adjudicatory mechanism under
the Act, 2001. The relevant provisions of the
Act, 2001 are extracted below:
S.58. Disputes which may be referred to
arbitration- (2) For the purpose of sub-section
(1), the following disputes shall also be
deemed to be the disputes touching the
constitution, management, or the business of a
co-operative society: .. (c) any dispute arising
in connection with the election of any officer of
the society.
S.60 - Reference of disputes to arbitration (1)
The Registrar may, on receipt of the reference
of a dispute under section 58 - (a) decide the
dispute himself, or (b) transfer it for disposal to
any person who has been invested by the
Government with powers in that behalf, or (c)
refer it for disposal to an arbitrator having the
eligibility, prescribed therefor.
S.100 - Execution of orders, Etc.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of
1882) or any other law for the time being in
force, every order made by the Registrar under
sub-section (2) of section 57 or under section
99, every decision or award made under
section 60, every order made by the Liquidator
under section 64 and every order made by the
Tribunal under section 105 and 106 and every
order made under section 104 shall, if not
carried out,-
(a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar, or
any person authorised by him in this behalf, be
deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall
be executed in the same manner as a decree of
such court;
or (b) be executed according to the law and
under the rules for the time being in force for
the recovery of arrears of land revenue: ...
S.104 - Appeal to the Registrar and the State
Government
S.105 - Constitution of and appeals to the
Tribunal
S.106 - Review of orders by Tribunal
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (14 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
S.107 - Power of revision of the Government
and the Registrar
S.125 - Power of Registrar to rescind certain
resolutions If in the opinion of the Registrar,
any resolution passed at the meeting of any
cooperative society or committee thereof is
opposed to the objects of the society or is
prejudicial to the interests of the society or its
members at large, or is against the provisions
of the Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the
society or is otherwise in excess of the powers
of the society, the Registrar, may, after giving
the society an opportunity of being heard,
rescind the resolution.
22. In the instant case, a complete adjudicatory mechanism is
provided under the Act of 2005, as a dispute touching the
constitution, management activity, election, or claim of
affiliation of a sports association is required to be
adjudicated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
There is a provision of appeal under Section 35 of the Act of
2005, whereby any sports association or person aggrieved
by any order made by the Registrar may prefer an appeal.
The provision of revision is also provided under Section 35
within the Act itself. Section 35 is reproduced as under:-
35. Appeal. - (1) Any Sports Association or person
aggrieved by an order made by the Registrar under
the provisions of this Act may appeal against the
order to the Secretary to the Government,
Department of Youth Affairs and Sports within thirty
days of such an order being made. (2) The decision
of the Secretary to the Government, Department of
Youth Affairs and Sports made in such an appeal
shall be final and a revision against his order may lie
with the High Court within thirty days of such an
order.
23. Considering aforesaid, the exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is almost
impermissible except in extraordinary circumstances,
required to be established to entertain a writ petition.
(C) Other Grounds:-
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (15 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1
has placed reliance upon Zee Telefilms Limited and Anr.
Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein a
Constitution Bench has considered guidelines as laid down in
the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute
of Chemical Biology reported as (2002) 2 SCC 333, and
also in the case of Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi & Ors. Etc (1981) 1 SCC 722, it was held that
for a body to be a part of the State under Article 12, the
following parameters have to be satisfied:-
(1) Principles laid down in Ajay Hasia, (1981) 1 SCC
722 are not a rigid set of principles so that it a body
talls within any one of them it must ex hypothesi,
be considered to be a State within the meaning of
Article 12.
(2) The question in each case will have to be
considered on the basis of facts available as to
whether in the light of the cumulative facts as
established, the body is financially,
dominated, by or under the control of the
Government functionally, administratively
(3) Such control must be particular to the body in
question and must be pervasıve.
(4) Mere regulatory control whether under statute
or otherwise would not serve to make a body a part
of the State.
25. The material on record further suggests that on
25.02.2026, the learned Single Judge has passed the
following order.
"The instant writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner with basic payer that the respondent
Registrar Cooperative Society, Rajasthan, be
directed to conclude the inquiry initiated vide order
dated 10.06.2023 in a stipulated period.
The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. B.S.
Chhaba, appearing for the Registrar Cooperative
Society, Rajasthan, on instructions submits that
the inquiry would be completed and concluded
within a period of two weeks' from today.
List this matter on 12.03.2026.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (16 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
The respondents would be at liberty to conduct the
election of Rajasthan Chess Association by
nominating any other person as a Returning
Officer, in case, the existing Returning officer
consent for withdrawing himself to be the
Returning Officer."
26. The respondents were given liberty to conduct the election
by nominating any other person as a Returning Officer, in
case the existing Returning Officer consent for withdrawing
himself to be the Returning Officer. It means there was a
discretion or voluntariness before the Returning Officer for
withdrawal. There was no order in specific for replacing or
changing the Returning Officer. The subsequent order dated
13.03.2026 indicate that the learned Single Judge has
considered following arguments advanced by the writ
petitioner:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
even after the specific observations of this Court
made in order dated 25.02.2026 that "The
respondents would be at liberty to conduct the
election of Rajasthan Chess Association by
nominating any other person as a Returning
Officer, in case, the existing Returning Officer
consent for withdrawing himself to be the
Returning Officer", the earlier Returning Officer
himself had conducted the elections and such
action of the Returning Officer is a clear
disobedience of the Court's order.
Registry is directed to issue notice to Shri
Umesh Kumar Sharma C/o Shri Vinesh Sharma,
293, Indira Colony, Nagaur why, contempt
proceedings may not be initiated against him for
alleged disobedience of the Court's order dated
25.02.2026."
27. Learned AAG has submitted to the Learned Single Judge's
Court that they have completed the inquiry but fresh
elections were held so, no further action is required. The
counsel for petitioner has further argued in following
manner:-
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (17 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in the inquiry conducted by the Cooperative
Department, the erstwhile body of the Rajasthan
Chess Association has been held guilty of certain
irregularities and the elections have been
conducted by a Returning Officer nominated by
such body.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid peculiar
facts, the Court deems just and proper to stay the
effect of the election held on 04.03.2026 by the
Returning Officer nominated by the erstwhile
association and the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies shall appoint an administrator for day to
day functioning of the association."
28. The writ petition was filed on 26.08.2025 for a direction to
Respondent No. 3 to conclude the inquiry initiated vide order
dated 10.06.2023, and with a further relief for declaration of
the election notice dated 03.12.2024 issued by Respondent
No. 1 as null and void. Further, for a direction to the
Registrar for appointment of an ad hoc committee for fresh
elections. The chain of events suggests that initially there
was a stay on the said election, but the same was modified
on 25.02.2026, and taking advantage of the same, elections
were conducted on 04.03.2026, wherein the present
appellant was declared as Honorary Secretary.
The subsequent event of election is required to be
challenged under Section 16 of the Act of 2005. There is no
remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, as it is beyond the scope of the writ petition.
29. As regards to contempt jurisdiction is concerned, the same is
quite different, and the learned Single Judge may institute
suo motu contempt, but cannot pass an order which is not
authorized under the law. The judgment in the case of Zee
Telefilms Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
(supra) is of no help to the learned counsel for Respondent
No. 1, but certainly the appellant has locus to challenge the
interim order dated 13.03.2026, whereby his rights were
SPONSORED
substantially decided by the learned Single Judge.
30. The counsel for Respondent No. 1 has raised the issue of
biasness and also of favoritism on the part of the Election
Officer. The allegations are to the extent that the Election
Officer and the present appellant are real brothers.
The allegation regarding the election held on 04.03.2026 can
be challenged only under Section 16 of the Act of 2005 and
not by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. A writ court is not a fact-finding court,
and no jurisdiction is vested in a writ court to decide factual
disputes. Similarly, biasness, favoritism, and unfairness are
required to be pleaded in specific terms, and the same has to
be established on record.
31. The Court is also bound to give an opportunity to rebut the
allegations to the person against whom such allegations are
made. Thus, before deciding the issue finally, it is necessary
to follow the principles of natural justice.
32. Considering the discussions made herein-above, the Special
Appeal (Writ) preferred by the appellant is maintainable, and
the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to
the settled canons of law and requires interference and is
liable to be set aside.
33. In view of the discussions made herein-above, the instant
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) is hereby allowed, and the order
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16073-DB] (19 of 19) [SAW-288/2026]
dated 13.03.2026 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
13261/2025 is set aside and quashed.
34. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
MONU KAMRA/198-S
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 12:57:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:53:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
