Telangana High Court
Safilguda Cricket Club vs The State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WRIT PETITION No. 21904 of 2025
Between:
Safilguda Cricket Club
..... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Sports Department & others
..... Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 24-04-2026
Submitted for Approval:
The Hon'ble Sri Justice NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes
may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see
the fair copy of judgment No
_____________________________
(NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J)
2
* The Hon'ble Sri Justice NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 21904 OF 2025
% Dated 24.04.2026
Between:
Safilguda Cricket Club
..... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Sports Department & others
..... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioner : Sri Raja Sripathi Rao,
Learned Senior Counsel,
Assisted by Sri Aditya Chintapanti
^ Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri A.P.Suresh Ram
Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri S. Abhay Kumar Sagar
Counsel for Respondent NO.4: Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy,
Special PP for CBI
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
MANU/JK/0485/2015
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 21904 OF 2025
24.04.2026
Between:
Safilguda Cricket Club
Rep. by its President,
Sri Chilumula Sanjeev Reddy
..... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Sports Department & others
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Petitioner filed the present writ petition aggrieved by
what is described as continuing, recurring and systemic failures
in the administration, financial management and governance of
Respondent No.2 – Association. It is asserted that petitioner is a
Society registered under the Telangana Societies Registration
Act, 2021 and is a member of Respondent No.2, therefore claims
to be directly affected by the manner in which the affairs of
Respondent No.2 are being conducted.
2. It is the case of Petitioner that over a period of
years, several committees and administrators appointed by this
Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have pointed out
4
serious irregularities in the functioning of Respondent No.2.
According to Petitioner, whenever judicial supervision operates,
irregularities are curbed, but once such supervision ceases, the
Association relapses into opacity and arbitrariness.
2.1. In support of this submission, Petitioner places
reliance, inter alia, upon the interim report dated 31.05.2025
submitted by the Administrators – Justice Anil R. Dave (Retd.)
and Justice G.V. Seethapathy (Retd.), the Committee
constituted on 22.08.2022 under the chairmanship of Justice
Nisar Ahmad Kakru (Retd.), report dated 29.10.2023 of the
Single Member Committee of Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.),
and the report dated 13.04.2025 of the Supervisory Committee
headed by Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd.). On the strength of this
material, it is contended that the situation discloses deep
institutional deficiencies warranting intervention by a
professional investigating agency.
2.2. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner seeks various reliefs
including a direction that Respondent No.3 take over the
functioning of Respondent No.2 in matters of administration
and finance, a declaration that the meeting held on 19.07.2025
is in violation of the bye-laws of Respondent No.2 and a further
direction to Respondent No.4 to investigate the alleged financial
irregularities. Petitioner states that the material placed before
5
the Court portrays that affairs of Respondent No.2 have not
come under judicial gaze for the first time. What emerges from
the pleadings is a prolonged and continuing history of
constitutional court engagement, marked by repeated
interventions intended to restore transparency, institutional
stability, financial discipline and rule-based governance. The
picture presented is of an Association which, according to the
case set up, responds to supervision while it lasts but reverts to
irregularity once such oversight recedes.
2.3. Petitioner’s narrative commences with the
proceedings in W.P.(PIL) No.16 of 2017, wherein questions of
public importance touching the transparency and accountability
of the administration of Respondent No.2 were raised, including
a request for investigation into allegations of misappropriation
of funds and mismanagement. During the pendency of those
proceedings, by order dated 06.02.2017, this Court directed the
Committee of Administrators of the Board of Control for Cricket
in India to depute its representative to monitor the Test Match
between India and Bangladesh at HCA Stadium, Uppal, and
further directed that a Financial Advisor be deputed to assist
the Observer to ensure proper maintenance of records and
submission of a report. Upon perusal of the material so
generated, this Court formed the view that the affairs of
6
Respondent No.2 were not being conducted properly. This was
followed by a further direction dated 28.02.2017 requiring
Respondent No.3 to place a report concerning the role of State
Associations in the conduct of IPL matches, particularly in view
of the imminent commencement of the 10th Edition.
2.4. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner asserts that the Chief
Executive Officer of Respondent No.3, by communication dated
06.03.2017, suggested, among other measures, appointment of
an observer or administrator to oversee the smooth conduct of
IPL matches at Hyderabad and to ensure implementation of
recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee. Acting on these
developments, W.P(PIL) M.P. No.97 of 2017 came to be moved,
and by order dated 23.03.2017, this Court appointed Justice
Anil R. Dave (Retd.) and Justice G.V. Sethapathy (Retd.) as
Administrators to exercise overall control over the
administration and management of Respondent No.2. The
Administrators were to be assisted by the elected body, while
Respondent No.3 was directed to extend necessary cooperation.
2.5. Petitioner also state that the interim material
generated during that phase is relied upon as recording grave
deficiencies. Meetings held on 30.03.2017 with statutory
auditors, internal auditors and accounts personnel are stated to
have revealed absence of a sound system of financial
7
management, want of documentation for transactions, failure to
observe even minimum procedural safeguards, and non-
adherence to accepted accounting practices. What was found
particularly disturbing, as recorded, was that despite repeated
observations, objections and comments of auditors, no steps
were taken to rectify defects or institute mechanisms to prevent
recurrence.
2.6. Petitioners further state that the Administrators are
further stated to have examined claims aggregating to about
Rs. 9.3 crores shown as outstanding to vendors and to have
entertained serious doubt about the genuineness of several
such demands. A forensic review undertaken by Ernst & Young
LLP India in respect of high value financial transactions
between 01.04.2015 and 31.03.2017 reportedly revealed
substantial irregularities and, even on a sample basis, indicated
a financial impact in the vicinity of Rs.2,68,00,000/-. In
consequence, the Administrators expressed the considered view
that the situation warranted an in-depth probe or forensic audit
by the Serious Fraud competent investigating agency such
Investigating Office or the Central Bureau of Investigation so
that the full extent of malfeasance could be unearthed and
responsibility fixed.
8
2.7. Petitioner further states, on 22.08.2022, the
Supreme Court constituted a Committee under the
chairmanship of Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakru with Mr. Anjani
Kumar, Mr. Vanka Pratap and Mr. S.L. Venkatapati Raju to
supervise the management of the Association. Reliance is placed
upon by Petitioner to the communication dated 13.01.2023 from
Justice Kakru, wherein several instances are catalogued of
alleged attempts by Mr. Vanka Pratap to frustrate the
functioning of the Committee, to sideline the Chair, and to
appropriate to himself authority to convene and regulate
meetings notwithstanding a unanimous resolution dated
26.09.2022 vesting such power in Justice Kakru. The same
communication then refers to issuance of a notice declaring the
appointment of an election officer invalid and to efforts to revise
the electoral roll without sanction from the Supreme Court.
These episodes are stated to have culminated in Justice Kakru
declining to endorse the conclusions of the Committee.
2.8. Thereafter, Petitioner also states that, the Supreme
Court disbanded Kakru Committee and appointed a Single
Committee under Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.). In the
report submitted, it is recorded that numerous stakeholders,
including former cricketers, were unanimous that for several
years the Association had been mismanaged, leading to
9
rampant corruption and decline in the standards of cricket in
Hyderabad. The Committee examined accounts and referred to
irregularities identified by Ernst & Young India LLP. It also
scrutinized questions concerning ownership of multiple clubs by
members or their relatives and by order dated 31.07.2023,
disqualified 57 clubs. The report adverted to criminal cases
pending against erstwhile office bearers, noted that accounts
had not been finalised since 2017 resulting in withholding of
funds by BCCI, and expressed the view that, apart from regular
auditing, forensic examination was necessary in view of red-
flagged transactions. The report dated 29.10.2023 additionally
emphasized that selection to representative teams must be
founded upon performance in properly structured league
competitions.
2.9. Subsequently, Petitioner asserts that, by order
dated 12.09.2024, this Court constituted a Supervisory
Committee headed by Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd.) to oversee
implementation of the recommendations concerning conduct of
league matches. While the Supervisory Committee reported that
matches were conducted successfully within the ambit of its
mandate, it also recorded receipt of a large number of
complaints and representations relating to the quality and
location of grounds, umpiring and scoring standards,
10
organization of leagues, selection of players, domicile issues, age
discrepancies, composition of institutional teams, and, above
all, absence of transparency in decision-making.
2.10. It is stated further that, against this extensive
institutional backdrop, the allegation is that for 2025-26
season, Respondent No.2 issued intimation merely by way of a
newspaper publication dated 16.05.2025 in the Deccan
Chronicle announcing commencement from 03.06.2025 with ‘A
Division three-day matches, but without setting out the
structure of competitions, number of participating teams,
principles of promotion or demotion, or basis of pool formation.
Such opacity, it is asserted, runs contrary to the reformative
emphasis laid down in earlier reports.
2.11. It is also asserted that Respondent No.2 has, in
effect, been unable to conduct league seasons independently for
three consecutive cycles, namely 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-
26, the first being overseen by the Single Member Committee
and the latter two under supervision of Justice Naveen Rao. The
focus then shifts to internal governance. Under Rule 14 of the
bye-laws, the Apex Council consists of nine councillors. Rule 15
vests wide authority in the Council but requires observance of
notice and mandates a quorum of five for valid functioning. The
allegation is that at present, only four members remain, the
11
President and Treasurer being under arrest, the Secretary
absconding, and the two representatives of the Players’
Association having been suspended by the Ombudsman and
Ethics Officer. Nevertheless, it is contended, decisions,
notifications and directives continue to be issued in the name of
the Council as though it were duly constituted.
2.12. It is also stated, serious objection is taken by
Petitioner to the resolution dated 15.07.2025 purporting to
continue the 87th AGM said to have been adjourned on
29.06.2025 and to reconvene it on 19.07.2025. The grounds of
challenge are manifold: the Council lacked quorum; no minutes
exist evidencing adjournment; minutes and video recordings of
29.06.2025 were not circulated; invitations for 29.06.2025 had
been extended to all members including the 57 clubs
disqualified earlier but those clubs were excluded from the
meeting of 19.07.2025; such exclusion was communicated only
by e mail dated 18.07.2025 at 10:21 PM; and notice of the
reconvened meeting was issued on 16.07.2025, granting merely
three days. Rule 8(5) requires twenty-one days ‘notice for an
AGM and even if the meeting were to be regarded as a Special
General Meeting under Rule 9, at least ten days ‘notice would be
mandatory.
12
2.13. It is also highlighted by Petitioner that certain
present office bearers, namely Mr. Sardar Daljeet Singh, Mr. T.
Basava Raju and Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, had themselves earlier
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35139
of 2024 contending that Association must be administered
strictly in accordance with its bye-laws. Further, reliance is
placed by Petitioner upon an enquiry conducted by the Central
Investigation Unit of the Anti-Corruption Bureau pursuant to
complaints of Mr. C. Babu Rao and Mr. R. M. Bhaskar, with the
report having been submitted to the Court of the I Additional
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. It is stated
that because of a CID enquiry, accounts of Respondent No.2 are
frozen, impairing its ability to function. Allegations are also
made that legal remuneration has been disbursed to counsel
said to be acting contrary to the Association’s interest and that
cheques and approvals are not being authorized in conformity
with the bye-laws, rendering the administrative and financial
situation precarious.
2.14. Drawing together these strands, it is urged by
Petitioner that repetition of similar findings across successive
judicially-supervised regimes discloses not isolated lapses but
entrenched structural infirmities, thereby justifying the call for
investigation by a professional agency of the nature earlier
13
contemplated by the Administrators. Petitioner also places
strong reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Jammu
& Kashmir at Srinagar in Majid Yaqoob Dar and others v.
State of J&K, 1 decided on 03.09.2015. In the said case, the
High Court was confronted with allegations of extensive
financial mismanagement, lack of transparency, diversion and
misuse of funds in the functioning of a cricket association and
with a situation where repeated complaints had failed to yield a
credible investigative outcome.
2.15. Petitioner states that in the aforesaid judgment, the
High Court undertook a detailed examination of the law
governing transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation. The Court recognized that though such power is
extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it nevertheless
becomes necessary where the facts disclose circumstances
creating a reasonable apprehension in the minds of
stakeholders that the investigation by the existing machinery
would not be fair, effective or free from influence. Petitioner
further states that the High Court emphasized that the
paramount consideration is preservation of public confidence in
the rule of law and in the process of justice. It is asserted, the
Court observed that where influential persons are involved,
1
MANU/JK/0485/2015
14
where the volume of funds allegedly misappropriated is
substantial, and where earlier enquiries have failed to inspire
trust, a constitutional court would be justified in stepping in to
ensure that the truth is unearthed by an agency independent of
local pressures.
2.16. Petitioner states that the judgment clearly records
that Courts cannot remain mute spectators if circumstances
reveal that investigation has not progressed with the required
sensitivity, speed or credibility. The High Court held that both
the perception and the reality of fairness are vital, and if
continuation of the existing investigation is likely to erode public
faith, transfer of investigation to the CBI becomes not only
permissible but necessary. It is asserted, an important principle
laid down in the said decision is that when allegations concern
the administration of a body performing public functions and
commanding significant public interest, the matter transcends
the realm of private disputes. In such situations, ensuring
accountability becomes a constitutional obligation and that the
discovery of truth and preservation of institutional ordinary
integrity outweigh technical objections relating investigative
jurisdiction.
2.17. Petitioner also states that the High Court took note
of delay in investigation, inconclusive steps, and the continuing
15
hold of persons under scrutiny over the administration, and
held that such factors legitimately give rise to doubt regarding
the ability of the local agency to conduct an impartial probe. It
was in order to restore confidence that the Court directed
investigation by the CBI.
2.18. Relying upon the aforesaid principles, Petitioner
states that the present case stands on an even stronger footing.
It is asserted, multiple committees appointed by constitutional
courts have, over several years, adverted to recurring
irregularities; criminal cases have been registered; issues of
transparency and governance continue to arise; and
stakeholders including members and players have repeatedly
demonstrated loss of faith in existing mechanisms. Petitioner
therefore states that the rationale adopted by the High Court of
Jammu & Kashmir, namely that credibility of the investigative
process is itself a matter of public importance, squarely
supports the prayer for entrustment of investigation to
Respondent No.4.
3. Respondent No.2 filed counter asserting that it is a
Society registered under the Telangana Societies Registration
Act, 2001 and that the statute itself provides the complete code
governing redressal of disputes concerning the society, its
management, administration, finances and internal affairs.
16
Particular reliance is placed on Section 23, which, according to
respondent, confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the competent
District Court within whose territorial limits the Association is
registered. This statutory mechanism, it is argued, constitutes a
full, adequate and efficacious remedy available to any member,
including Petitioner. Invoking settled principles that writ
jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised when such alternative
remedy exists, it is stated, Petitioner bypassed the legislatively-
prescribed forum and wrongly represented this Court that no
such remedy is available. On this ground alone, the Writ
Petition is liable for dismissal at the threshold.
3.1. It is contended, Respondent No.2 is not “State” nor
an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution. The bye-laws, rules and regulations under
which the Association functions are described as non-statutory
in character and purely contractual, representing mutual
arrangements between the Association and those who have
voluntarily chosen to become its members. It is therefore, urged
that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226, which is designed for enforcement of public law rights,
cannot be invoked for adjudication of disputes arising out of
such private and consensual arrangements. This respondent
stresses that public law remedies, including mandamus or
17
certiorari, are not available to enforce obligations flowing from
contracts, and Petitioner’s attempt is nothing but an effort to
transform internal disagreements into constitutional litigation.
3.2. Reinforcing this submission, Respondent No.2
reiterates that bye-laws have not been enacted by any
legislature and do not possess statutory force. They bind
members only by virtue of agreement. Consequently, even if any
deviation is assumed, the matter remains within the realm of
private law, for which the remedy must be sought in the manner
indicated under Section 23 of the Societies Act, 2001, and not
by invoking writ jurisdiction.
3.3. Another limb of objection is directed by Respondent
No. 2 at the nature of the principal relief. The prayer that
Respondent No.3 be directed to take over the affairs of
Respondent No.2 is characterised as one that travels far beyond
the personal rights of the Petitioner and seeks relief in rem,
affecting the entire body of stakeholders. Such a matter,
according to respondent, partakes the colour of a public interest
litigation and must, as per the roster practice, be placed before
the Hon’ble Chief Justice. It is contended that a member, who
has agreed to abide by the bye-laws cannot maintain an action
seeking to override them, particularly when internal forums
such as the Ethics Officer under Article 39 and the
18
Ombudsman under Article 40 are available. Petitioner, it is
therefore, urged by Respondent No. 2, lacks locus to pursue the
present remedies.
3.4. Strong opposition is also voiced by the
Respondents to the interim request for appointment of Justice
Naveen Rao (Retd.) as a supervisory authority. It is stated, in
strict compliance with its bye-laws, it has already appointed
Hon’ble Justice K.C. Bhanu (Retd.) as Ethics Officer and Hon’ble
Justice Suresh Kait (Retd.) as Ombudsman, both of whom are
discharging their adjudicatory functions. These offices, it is
said, provide an effective, independent and self-contained
mechanism for resolution of disputes raised by members. The
earlier appointment of Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.) by the
Supreme Court is distinguished as having been confined to a
defined objective and limited duration. In contrast, the present
prayer is portrayed as seeking open-ended administrative
control, which would unjustifiably erode the autonomy of the
Association. On this premise, the interim relief is termed vague,
unwarranted, misconceived and contrary to the governing bye-
laws.
3.5. While maintaining these objections, Respondent
No.2 nonetheless traverses the averments on merits. It is stated
that Petitioner has not produced material to establish the
19
existence or membership of petitioner society, and in the
absence of such proof, the standing of Petitioner to challenge
the functioning of Respondent No.2 is itself doubtful. The
allegations of systemic collapse are denied. In an organisation of
its scale, occasional operational difficulties may have arisen, but
they have been addressed from time to time in accordance with
the bye-laws, and at present there are no legal infirmities or
financial irregularities affecting its operations.
3.6. The references to judicial committees,
administrators and extracts from their reports are described by
the answering Respondent as historical narration. It is
reiterated, those matters cannot be used to sustain present
interference, especially in light of the preliminary objections
already raised. It is specifically denied by Respondents that
recommendations of the Single Member Committee or the
Supervisory Committee are being disregarded; on the contrary,
it is asserted, they are being implemented. With respect to Writ
Petition No.15380 of 2025, it is admitted that such petition was
filed and that by the common interlocutory order therein,
Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd.) was directed to conduct league
matches for 2025-26 season at the earliest. Save for this limited
factual position, the remaining assertions are denied.
20
3.7. The answering Respondents state that the alleged
claim that Respondent No.2 has been incapable of conducting
league seasons or discharging its cricketing responsibilities is
termed vague and unsupported. Likewise, allegations
concerning the Apex Council, want of quorum, and illegality in
relation to continuation of the AGM are refuted. It is
acknowledged that adequacy of notice for the meeting dated
29.06.2025 is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 18089 of
2025, but maintains that the Council functions in consonance
with Rule 15 of the bye-laws.
3.8. Insofar as the contention that certain office bearers
had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No.35139 of
2024 is concerned, Respondent No.2 does not dispute that such
proceedings were instituted. However, it is stated, any further
implications sought to be drawn from that circumstance are
misconceived and are specifically denied. It is clarified that
though the accounts had been frozen at an earlier point of time,
the competent Court has subsequently directed that they be
unfrozen.
3.9. Respondent No.2 states that the allegations that
payments have been made improperly, that financial approvals
are irregular, or that the administration is precarious are
without foundation and remain unsubstantiated. It is the stand
21
of Respondent No.2 that what ultimately survives in the writ
petition is the Petitioner’s insistence on entrustment of
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, a course of
action to which Respondent No.2 is firmly opposed.
4. Petitioner filed reply raising a serious objection
regarding the very competence of the counter affidavit.
According to Petitioner, Respondent No.2 had earlier preferred
Writ Appeal No. 1056 of 2025 challenging the order dated
25.07.2025 in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.P. No.21904 of 2025,
wherein the Association was represented by its Joint Secretary.
Petitioner points out that, in contrast, the present counter is
sworn by the Chief Executive Officer on the strength of a
resolution dated 23.08.2025. They contrast this with another
resolution dated 03.09.2025 relied upon by the Joint Secretary
in the writ appeal and contends that the later authorization
would prevail. According to Petitioner, change of representation
is deliberate and intended to overcome objections raised during
hearing of writ appeal, where it had been argued that the Joint
Secretary himself had earlier invoked Article 226 in Writ Petition
No. 35139 of 2024 alleging violation of the bye-laws and, having
obtained favourable orders on 02.05.2025, could not
subsequently contend that a writ petition is not maintainable. It
is stated, this Court declined to entertain the Writ Appeal,
22
whereafter Respondent No.2 sought withdrawal with liberty to
raise defences in the present matter. Petitioner therefore, alleges
lack of bona fides in filing the counter through the Chief
Executive Officer and asserts that under the bye-laws only, the
Secretary is competent to represent the Association, that there
can be no delegation contrary to the governing framework, and
that the counter is consequently invalid.
4.1. Petitioner states, on the objection of
maintainability, that the nature of reliefs sought does not fall
within the ambit of Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act.
They place reliance on the earlier adjudication of this very
question in Writ Petition No.35139 of 2024, in which
Respondent No.2 had raised a similar plea. It is emphasised
that the Joint Secretary of Respondent No.2 was himself
petitioner No.2 in that case and cannot now adopt a contrary
stand. Such conduct, Petitioner contends, attracts the doctrine
of approbate and reprobate. Further, they draw attention to
pleadings taken by Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 27896
of 2024, where it had asserted that it discharges public
functions and public duties, a fact noticed by this Court in its
order in Writ Petition No. 35139 of 2024. Petitioner therefore,
asserts that the question of maintainability cannot be reopened.
23
4.2. Petitioner also disputes the challenge to its own
existence and membership. It is stated, the deponent had
contested elections held in October 2023 for the post of
Treasurer through Petitioner club and the present acting
President and Joint Secretary had participated in the same
election. To dispel any doubt, Petitioner encloses its registration
certificate and letter of authorisation. It is also stated, the
deponent has represented Petitioner even before the Supreme
Court in SLP No.6779 of 2012. According to them, the attempt
to question locus is a desperate effort to silence scrutiny.
4.3. On the availability of alternative remedy, Petitioner
reiterates that even where such remedy exists, this Court
retains jurisdiction under Article 226 depending upon facts and
circumstances. Petitioner is stated to have approached this
Court, among other reasons, on the basis of the report of the
Committee of Administrators comprising Justice Anil Dave
(Retd.) and Justice Seethapathi (Retd.), including the final
report dated 28.01.2018, and submits that the reliefs now
sought can be granted only by this Court and not by a District
Court exercising powers under Section 23.
4.4. Petitioner emphatically denies the contention that
Respondent No.2 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. They
place reliance upon orders in Criminal Petitions Nos.4080 of
24
2017, 5097 of 2020, 5155 of 2020 and 6641 of 2020, as well as
W.P. No.35139 of 2024, where Respondent No.2 was held to be
performing public functions. It is asserted, the order in Writ
Petition No. 35139 of 2024 has attained finality and binds the
Association. Petitioner points out that the present acting
President and Joint Secretary were themselves parties in that
litigation. Reference is also made to the decision rendered in
W.P.(PIL) No. 16 of 2017 dated 23.05.2017, particularly
paragraph 19, to submit that the argument that the bye-laws
are merely contractual stands concluded.
4.5. Petitioner denies the plea that this Writ Petition is
in the nature of a public interest litigation. Being a member, it
seeks enforcement of reforms already articulated by court-
appointed bodies including the Administrators, Justice Kakru
Committee, Single Member Committee and the Supervisory
Committee. Petitioner states that the Ethics Officer and
Ombudsman lack jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought.
Petitioner also objects to the submission that appointment of
Justice Naveen Rao (Retd.) would violate the bye-laws. It is
clarified that the said appointment flows from orders in I.A. Nos.
1 and 2 of 2025 in W.P. No.15380 of 2025 and has already
yielded successful conduct of league matches. According to
25
Petitioner, the opposition raised by Respondent No.2 reveals its
attitude towards accountability.
4.6. Petitioner proceeds to deny that there are no
financial or administrative infirmities. Respondent No.2 paid
legal remuneration even to counsel appearing for office bearers
and has done so despite restraining orders of this Court, which,
according to them, itself warrants adverse inference. It is
specifically denied, the statement in the counter that
recommendations of the Single Member Committee and
Supervisory Committee are being followed. Petitioner further
states that a substantial portion of the reply concerns alleged
willful disobedience of the order dated 25.07.2025 in I.A. No.1 of
2025 in Writ Petition No.21904 of 2025, by which Justice
Naveen Rao (Retd.) was appointed to supervise functioning of
Respondent No.2, with a direction that all office bearers act
under his overall supervision and in consultation with him. The
Petitioner asserts that despite clear language, the Apex Council
and Chief Executive Officer have failed to comply. While
acknowledging that the Supervisory Committee has successfully
conducted ‘A’ Division, ‘B’ Division and ‘C’ Division matches,
constituted men’s and women’s selection committees, initiated
Under-19 and Under-23 probables, and overseen achievements
26
such as victory in the Buchi Babu Tournament, the Petitioner
alleges obstruction by the Apex Council.
4.7. Petitioner cites examples including delay in
appointment of coaches for Under-19, Under-23 (from 16
October) and Senior Ranji Trophy (from 15 October), unilateral
alteration of the Women’s Selection Committee after a press
release dated 08.09.2025 that originally named Ms. N. Sunita
Anand as Chairperson along with Ms. B.R. Suvarna Laxmi,
Ms. Nayyar Fatima (Monica Preethi), Ms. Harsha Harinarayan
and Ms. G. Sangeetha, by subsequently replacing the
Chairperson with Ms. B.R. Suvarna Laxmi and inducting Ms. M.
Keerthana without approval. Petitioner alleges that trials for
women’s teams were conducted through direct trials rather than
league performance, with players facing only a few deliveries,
contrary to recommendations of the Single Member Committee.
4.8. Petitioner further asserts that prior approval of the
Supervisory Committee is mandatory for actions of the Apex
Council, that tournament and governing bodies required under
the bye-laws were not constituted, and that decisions have been
taken in disregard of these requirements. Petitioner enumerates
acts including failure to notify resolutions of the AGM dated
29.06.2025, denial of infrastructure and staff to the Supervisory
Committee, rejection of request for appointment of a
27
coordinator, issuance of notice for a Special General Meeting,
exclusion of 57 clubs, constitution of all committee for
amendment of bye-laws, non-sending of selectors to Buchi Babu
Tournament, withholding cooperation from staff, issuance of
Expression of Interest dated 26.09.2025 for sponsorship of
Men’s Inter-District T-20 tournaments, non-payment of
pensions to former Ranji players despite receipt of BCCI funds,
disappearance of official records including lease documents of
Gymkhana grounds, and unilateral nomination of Mr. N. Rajesh
Yadav as ICA Male Representative in place of R.A. Swaroop
without following the election procedure notified by the Electoral
Officer of BCCI for elections scheduled from 15 to 16 October
2025. It is stated, these are illustrative of many violations.
According to Petitioner, owing to such conduct, contempt
notices were sent by e mail on 28.09.2025 and reminder
communications on 03.10.2025, besides dispatch by registered
post.
4.9. Petitioner concludes by asserting that Respondent
No.2 and its functionaries continue to act in disregard of
judicial directions, causing prejudice to the game, to members
and to aspiring cricketers, and therefore the writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
28
5. Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit stating
that Petitioner seeks to draw support from the forensic review
undertaken by Ernst & Young LLP India, which is stated to have
highlighted instances of misappropriation and irregular
utilization of funds of the Association. It is also the allegation of
Petitioner that HCA and its member clubs have amassed
substantial funds through illegal means and that the nature of
the findings in the above reports necessitates an investigation
by the CBI. Respondent No.2 Association, is a society registered
under the provisions of the Hyderabad Public Societies
Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (1940 AD), and is therefore, an
independent body governed by its own memorandum, rules and
regulations. It is stated, the Association is affiliated to the Board
of Control for Cricket in India, which is a private, autonomous
organization functioning independently of the Government of
India. The said body is not recognized as a National Sports
Federation by the Government of India and does not fall within
the administrative control or supervisory jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The BCCI does not receive
any grants, aid, or financial assistance from the Government of
India.
5.1. It is stated, the BCCI occupies a dominant and
influential position in the International Cricket Council and
29
receives a substantial share of revenues distributed by the ICC
in accordance with its internal arrangements. In view of the fact
that the financial resources of the BCCI are generated from its
own activities and from revenue sharing mechanisms within
international cricket administration, there is no governmental
shareholding, funding, or financial stake of the Government of
India in the BCCI. It is therefore, stated that bodies affiliated to
the BCCI, including HCA, cannot be construed as entities falling
within the investigative jurisdiction of the CBI merely on the
basis of the allegations made by Petitioner.
5.2. Respondent No.4 asserts that, in pursuance of the
directions issued from time to time by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court, Administrators and a Single
Member Committee were appointed for the purpose of
examining and overseeing the affairs of the Board of Control for
Cricket in India and the entities affiliated to it, including the
Hyderabad Cricket Association. The said authorities, upon
undertaking the exercise entrusted to them, have already
submitted their respective reports before the competent forums.
It is learnt that, on the basis of the findings contained in the
said reports, coupled with various complaints received from
different quarters, the Crime Investigation Department
Telangana has initiated investigations into several instances of
30
alleged misappropriation and irregular utilization of funds in the
HCA. Respondent No.4 further states that it is understood that,
in connection with such allegations, as many as eight criminal
cases have been registered against the office bearers of HCA and
that the investigations in those matters are presently underway
in accordance with law. As part of the latest developments
arising out of the said investigations, the Secretary of HCA was
arrested on 25.07.2025 at Pune.
5.3. Respondent No.4 states that it is learnt that the
Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, has already initiated
proceedings by registering a case under the provisions of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act on the strength of the FIRs
and investigation reports submitted by the Crime Investigation
Department Telangana. The said reports had, inter alia, pointed
out alleged irregularities in the utilisation of funds received by
the Hyderabad Cricket Association from the Board of Control for
Cricket in India. It is therefore, stated that specialized statutory
agencies are already seized of the matter and are proceeding in
accordance with their respective mandates under law.
5.4. As understood, it is stated, the allegations
concerning financial impropriety in the affairs of HCA are
essentially local in character and do not disclose any interstate
or international ramifications. In the absence of such features,
31
and particularly when competent authorities of the State as well
as other central agencies are already undertaking investigation
based on the material available to them, there exists no
occasion or necessity for entrustment of the matter to the CBI.
6. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Aditya Chintapanti , learned counsel for
petitioner, Sri A.P. Suresh Ram, learned Standing Counsel for
Respondent No.2 – HCA, Sri S. Abhay Kumar Sagar, learned
Standing Counsel for BCCI and learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Sri T. Srujan Kumar Redy, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI.
7. This Court with great concern to the budding
cricketers in the State of Telangana and taking into
consideration the pathetic circumstances of the activities and
administration of Respondent No.2, has bestowed its anxious
and careful consideration upon the pleadings of the parties, the
rival submissions urged, and the extensive record placed for its
scrutiny. The Court is also remained mindful of the institutional
setting in which the present controversy arises. The body whose
affairs are under examination is not encountering judicial
oversight for the first time. On the contrary, the material
demonstrates a long and troubled history of repeated
interventions by constitutional courts, appointment of
32
administrators and supervisory authorities, preparation of
reports by eminent former Judges, and continued resurfacing of
disputes concerning governance, transparency and financial
discipline. The present request must therefore be appreciated
against this accumulated background and not in isolation.
8. The central question that falls for determination is
whether, in this conspectus of circumstances, this Court ought
to have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
and direct that investigation into the alleged administrative,
managerial and financial irregularities in the functioning of
Respondent No.2 be entrusted to the Central Bureau of
Investigation. The legal principles governing such transfer are
well settled. Direction to the CBI is never to be made
mechanically or for the mere asking. Ordinarily, investigation of
offences lies within the province of the State machinery. Yet,
this norm of restraint is not an inflexible prohibition. Where the
Court, on objective appraisal, finds that credibility of the
process itself has become vulnerable, or that the situation
demands a mechanism which will command confidence. across
the spectrum of stakeholders, constitutional jurisdiction may
legitimately be invoked. The ultimate touchstone is whether the
course adopted will advance fairness, legitimacy and finality.
33
9. When the present record is examined in that light,
certain features assume compelling significance. Beginning with
W.P.(PIL) No.16 of 2017, the affairs of Respondent No.2 have
repeatedly drawn judicial attention. By order dated 23.03.2017,
Justice Anil R. Dave (Retd.) and Justice G.V. Seethapathy
(Retd.) were appointed as Administrators. Their engagement
with the Association’s financial systems, auditors and personnel
led to observations of absence of structured accounting
practices, lack of supporting documentation, and continued
neglect of professional objections. Vendor claims approximating
Rs.9.3 crores were scrutinized and doubts were expressed
regarding genuineness of several of them. A forensic review by
Ernst & Young LLP India, even on sample examination for the
period between 01.04.2015 and 31.03.2017, indicated
irregularities with a financial implication estimated at around
Rs.2.68 crores. The Administrators, in clear terms, recorded
that the situation warranted deeper probe by specialized
agencies such as the SFIO or the CBI. The narrative did not end
there. The Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
on 22.08.2022 under the chairmanship of Justice Nisar Ahmed
Kakru (Retd. Chief Justice) encountered fresh controversy
regarding internal functioning, authority to convene meetings
and control over electoral processes. The subsequent Single
34
Member Committee headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.
Judge Supreme Court of India), in report dated 29.10.2023,
recorded widespread stakeholder perception of persistent mis-
management, referred again to financial red flags, noted
pendency of criminal cases, and disqualified 57 clubs upon
examination of membership anomalies. Within few weeks of
handing over charge to the newly elected Apex Council, the
issues of mismanagement hunted Respondent No.2 compelling
this Court to once again entrust the supervision of affairs to
Justice P.Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court of
Telangana) by order dated 25-07-2025 in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in
Writ Petition No. 21904 of 2025. Later, even while supervision of
league administration was undertaken by Justice P. Naveen Rao
(Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Telangana) pursuant
to orders dated 12.09.2024, a large volume of representations
continued to pour in relating to selections, infrastructure,
eligibility, governance standards and absence of transparency.
The recurrence of substantially-similar themes across different
periods, different supervisory formats and different eminent
authorities cannot be dismissed as coincidence. It suggests that
the controversy has acquired structural depth.
10. It has been brought to the notice of this Court,
Criminal cases have been registered, investigations are stated to
35
be in progress, arrests have been effected, including that of the
Secretary on 25.07.2025, and proceedings under the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act have been initiated by the Directorate
of Enforcement. These steps, undoubtedly, show that law has
been set in motion. However, mere existence of an investigation
does not automatically restore confidence., however, though
considerable time had passed, there seems to be no end to the
said criminal proceedings, obliviously at the instance of the
powerful persons associated with Respondent No.2 directly or
indirectly. What continues to confront this Court is a serious
and persistent contest regarding the neutrality, independence
and acceptability of the process. Litigation has not abated.
Disputes relating to meetings, quorum, exclusion of clubs,
control over administration and adherence to directions issued
by supervisory authorities continue to surface. Experience of
the past several years reveals that notwithstanding sustained
supervision by eminent retired Judges appointed by
constitutional courts, and despite repeated opportunities
afforded to the administration to correct itself, controversies and
complaints have continued to surface. The persistence of such
issues even in the presence of high-level oversight indicates the
depth and entrenchment of the problems rather than any
inadequacy of the supervisory mechanisms. In this backdrop,
36
the Court must consider whether continuation of the existing
investigative framework will genuinely bring quietus to the
dispute or whether, given the history, it is likely to leave scope
for renewed challenge regardless of the eventual outcome.
11. In addressing this concern, this Court derives
guidance from the principles articulated by the High Court of
Jammu and Kashmir in Majid Yaqoob Dar. That judgment
recognizes that while transfer of investigation to the CBI is an
extraordinary measure, it becomes justified where
circumstances create a reasonable apprehension that the
existing mechanism may not inspire confidence or may be
perceived as susceptible to local pressures. The central
emphasis is preservation of public faith. The decision reminds
us that both the reality and the appearance of fairness are
indispensable to legitimacy. Where bodies performing functions
of significant public importance are involved, accountability
necessarily travels beyond internal membership and becomes a
matter of concern to the wider community. Courts are therefore,
empowered to intervene when such intervention is required to
ensure that the outcome of the inquiry will be accepted without
lingering doubt.
12. Administration of cricket within the State cannot be
viewed as an isolated private arrangement. It determines
37
opportunities for players, involves large financial dealings, and
shapes representation of the region in national competitions. Its
functioning affects a wide spectrum of participants and
followers of the sport. When allegations of irregularity and
financial impropriety recur across years and are noticed
repeatedly by authorities appointed by courts themselves, the
expectation that investigation must be visibly independent
becomes both natural and legitimate. The continued recourse of
stakeholders to judicial forums is itself indicative of a deficit of
confidence that routine assurances have not been able to
bridge.
13. The objection raised by Respondent No.4 that
Respondent No.2 is affiliated to an autonomous body and does
not receive governmental funding has been carefully considered.
Yet, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 does not
turn solely on questions of ownership or finance. The Court’s
responsibility is to ensure fairness in processes that carry
significant public consequences. If confidence in that process is
shaken, the Court cannot decline intervention merely because
the institution is formally autonomous. This Court is of the view
that in the given circumstances and peculiar facts of the case, it
would be appropriate to constitute Special Investigation Team
by Crime Branch CID, State of Telangana. The said Special
38
Investigation Team shall be headed by Additional Commissioner
Police of IPS Cadre.
14. It must also be clarified that directing transfer of
investigation does not amount to any expression of opinion on
guilt or innocence. It is a procedural step, intended to identify
the forum most capable of conducting the inquiry in a manner
that reduces suspicion and enhances legitimacy. Persisting with
a framework that itself remains under challenge may only invite
further rounds of dispute and may cast a shadow over the
eventual outcome.
15. Taking an overall view of the matter, including the
long history of judicial intervention and supervision, the
financial concerns recorded by earlier Administrators with
figures of considerable magnitude, the later reports that
continued to reflect dissatisfaction, the survival of intense
rivalry even during periods of oversight, and the repeated
assertion that neutrality of the process is doubtful, this Court is
satisfied that exceptional circumstances are made out. The need
of the hour is an investigation whose independence will be
beyond debate and whose conclusions will command
acceptance.
16. Considering the factual and legal aspects of the
instant case and inter alia, the relief sought in the present Writ
39
Petition, this Court is having ample jurisdiction to mould the
relief as against the relief sought of investigation by CBI which
is a central agency by directing the Director General of Police to
constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by the officer in
the rank of Additional Commissioner of Police of the Indian
Police Service Cadre. Accordingly, the Special Investigation
Team is directed to register an appropriate case and undertake
investigation into the allegations relating to the administrative,
managerial and financial affairs of Respondent No.2. The
Special Investigation Team shall be at liberty to examine the
material already on record, including the reports submitted by
Justice Anil R. Dave (Retd.), Justice G.V. Seethapathy (Retd.),
Justice Nisar Ahmed Kakru, Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.),
and Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd.), and to collect such further
evidence as may emerge during investigation, in accordance
with law.
17. All the authorities presently in custody or control of
relevant records, including the State agencies and the office
bearers and employees of Respondent No.2, shall extend full
cooperation to the Special Investigation Team and ensure
expeditious transmission of all material necessary for effective
investigation.
40
18. Insofar as the prayer seeking a direction to
Respondent No.3 to take over the administration of Respondent
No.2 is concerned, this Court is of the view that once
investigation by a Special Investigation Team has been directed,
further displacement of the existing administrative structure is
not warranted at this stage and can be considered in future and
Petitioners can approach this Court in future at the appropriate
time.
19. For a long time, matters concerning cricket is
marred with controversy and there have been serious
allegations of illegalities in conducting league matches and in
the selection of players to represent the State. Taking note of the
concerns expressed in conducting leagues and selection of
players to represent the State the Court appointed Justice
P.Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court of
Telangana) to supervise conduct of league matches for the
remaining cricket season 2024-25 and for the cricket season
2025- 26. Since the overall functioning of Respondent No.2 was
also in shambles, by order dated 25-07-2025 in I.A.No.1 of
2025, Justice Naveen Rao was also given the responsibility of
supervising the functioning of Respondent No.2. Justice Naveen
Rao had conducted the last two seasons of league matches in a
fair, transparent, and successful manner and has also
41
supervised the process of selection of probables and other
cricketing activities in the best interest of the game,
notwithstanding the hurdles created in his functioning and not
providing required back end support. In the interregnum, this
Court had received interim reports from Justice P. Naveen Rao.
20. This Court had gone through the reports submitted
by Justice P.Naveen Rao (Retd Acting Chief Justice, High of
Telangana), the contents of which reflects bad state of affairs
and non-cooperative approach and attitude by the Apex Council
of Respondent No.2. The reports also reflect the disorganized
system of administration of Respondent No.2 and narrates the
obstruction/s faced by Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd Acting Chief
Justice, High Court of Telangana) in discharging his
responsibilities. The recommendations made by him for
improving the cricket infrastructure and cricket affairs were not
received, implemented and considered, rather the Apex Council
does not want the presence of Justice Naveen Rao in
Respondent No.2 administration and activities for obvious
reasons. Further, this Court is informed that this year, players
have played more than 1500 matches at various levels and
performance of the State teams in various tournaments has also
improved, significantly. The State team had won two major
42
tournaments in all India level. This shows that appointment of
Justice P.Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court of
Telangana) as supervisory committee had paid dividends. But
for the few vested interested persons in Respondent No.2,
overall, the satisfaction of people concerning cricket were happy
with the measures taken by Justice P.Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting
Chief Justice, High Court of Telangana). If only he was given
free hand, the standard of cricket will continue to improve,
further. From the interim reports, it can be culled out that
much more is required to be done to bring back the glory of
cricket in the State.
21. There is need to put systems in place to avoid
mismanagement and hampering the good work done so far and
warrants the indulgence of this Court to direct Respondent No.2
through its Apex Council, shall function under the supervision
of Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court
of Telangana), more particularly in cricketing affairs for the
reason that with the kind of the mess Respondent No.2 is in and
excessive involvement of vested interests and pending full-
fledged investigation by CBCID, the cricket affairs will take a
beating if Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice,
High Court of Telangana) is not continued to supervise the
functioning of the cricket affairs and over all administration of
43
Respondent No.2, as Single Member Committee of Respondent
No.2, pending investigation by CBCID. Thereby, this Court
requests Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High
of Telangana) to continue to supervise the functioning of
Respondent No.2, as Single Member Committee (SMC), till such
time the criminal investigation is done and criminal cases, if any
taken cognizance by the appropriate courts and cases come to
logical end.
22. That apart, on going through the record viz the
reports of Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice,
High Court of Telengana), this Court is of the prima facie view
that the acts of commission of Mr. Thamidisetty Basava Raju,
Joint Secretary and Dr. Konda Anil Kumar, Treasurer amount
to violations of the orders of this Court so also amount to over-
reaching the orders of the Court, thereby warrants this Court to
initiate suo motu Contempt of Court proceedings against them
and accordingly directs issuance of Form-1 Notice.
23. In the best interests of the cricket and to ensure
proper governance, transparency and accountability in
Respondent No.2, the SMC is fully empowered to take necessary
decisions relating to cricket affairs, administration and financial
matters inter alia Respondent No.2. The scope of authority of
SMC includes, but not limited to:
44
i) Conducting of men’s and women’s leagues matches for all
divisions and categories.
ii) To streamline selection process for selection of players for
Zonal, State, and other representative teams, men and women.
iii) SMC shall have complete discretion to appoint coaches,
selectors, support staff, and technical personnel and so also
that of Legal Counsels to represent the Respondent No.2 in
various courts. To fix remuneration/s and lay down guidelines
for selection of players to represent the state.
iv) Regulation and supervision of cricketing activities in the
best interest of the game.
v) Formation or appointment of team/s or
committee/committees to support the SMC in carrying out its
functions and fix their remuneration.
vi) Monitoring and guiding cricket administration in
accordance with the orders of this Court
vii) Take all measures to improve infrastructure in the
districts of the state.
viii) Undertake structural reforms and put in place systems
and procedures to streamline the functioning of Respondent
No.2.
It is open to the SMC to seek appropriate directions,
if so desired, to give effect to above orders.
24. The Apex Council of Respondent No.2 shall obtain
approval to all decisions and seek guidance from SMC in all
matters and extend full cooperation to ensure smooth
functioning and implementation of this Court’s directions. The
obstructions and hurdles from the some of the Apex Council
45
members, as noticed from the reports of Justice P. Naveen Rao
(Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Telangana), which are
adversely affecting the smooth functioning and implementation
of the directions of this Court are in violation of the orders
passed by this Court. Any further interference, obstruction or
deviation in the functioning by the SMC would be viewed very
seriously.
25. It is further clarified that any decision taken by the
SMC in discharge of its duties and in accordance with the
directions of this Court shall be final and binding on the office
bearers, Apex Council, all affiliated clubs, officials staff and
stake holders, etcetera of Respondent No.2. Such decisions shall
not be challenged or questioned before any authority, forum,
committee, or body and any grievance or challenge, if any, shall
lie only before this Court which has constituted and empowered
the SMC.
26. The challenge to the meeting dated 19.07.2025 and
other disputes regarding compliance with the byelaws are
matters which may be pursued in appropriate proceedings and,
where relevant, may also fall for consideration in the course of
investigation. It is therefore, unnecessary to render a separate
adjudication on those aspects herein. It is needless to state, the
existing supervision of Respondent No.2 under Justice
46
P. Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court of
Telangana), as Supervisory Committee, pending investigation by
CBCID and completion of criminal proceedings in all
perspectives and attains finality. The Apex Council of
Respondent No. 2 shall function under the supervision of
Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd. Acting Chief Justice, High Court of
Telangana). The honorarium for Justice P. Naveen Rao is fixed
at Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) per month and
Respondent No. 2 shall provide all the necessary infrastructure
namely office space, manpower, assistance and logistics.
Likewise, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait (Retd), as Ombudsman
and Justice K. C. Bhanu (Retd.) as Ethics officer shall continue
until their respective terms expire by efflux of time. It is clarified
that the present direction is intended only to ensure a fair,
independent and credible investigative process. No opinion is
expressed on the merits of the allegations or the culpability of
any individual, which shall be determined strictly in accordance
with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
————————————-
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
24th April 2026
ksld