PANJIM: The appeal filed by Kishor Bandekar and others against Mahesh Candolkar and others in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi against the judgement of the Single Judge upholding the order dated December 14, 2021 passed by Appellate Authority of All-India Chess Federation, New Delhi (AICF) has been dismissed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula in New Delhi, Thursday.
The General Body of Goa Cricket Association (GCA), in its meeting held on January 8, 2017, had carried out a pivotal amendment in the constitution of GCA, thereby increasing the number of elected members of the Executive Committee from seven to 12.
On July 22, 2021, the GCA notified elections for the Executive Committee. The list of approved nomination forms was published on August 5, 2021, and after the closure of withdrawal window, the Presiding Officer (PO) released the list of candidates elected to the North and South Goa Taluka Associations on August 10, 2021. At the same time, holding that each taluka can be represented by an individual candidate, the nomination forms of Respondents No. 1 to 4 were declared to be invalid and certain candidates from Barder, Tiswadi, Ponda and Salcete talukas were declared to be elected unopposed.
The disqualification of candidature by the PO was challenged by four respondents before the Ethics Commission of AICF, in accordance with AICF’s Code of Ethics. The Commission, through their order signed on October 19, 2021, rescinded PO’s decision with a direction to carry out the voting process within two weeks from the date of receipt of said order. Against this order, the Appellants preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority of AICF, which was disallowed on December 14, 2021, and decision of the Ethics Commission was affirmed.
Dissatisfied with Appellate Authority’s decision, the Appellants filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. However, on June 2, 2023, the learned Single Judge ruled against the Appellants, thereby upholding Appellate Authority’s decision.
The short question in the appeal revolved around the interpretation of GCA’s rules and regulations, specifically, whether each of the 12 representatives in the Executive Committee must hail from a different taluka, or whether it is permissible for multiple representatives to belong to the same taluka.
The Order stated the learned Single Judge’s interpretation based on the explicit language used in the GCA’s Rules and Regulations as well as the General Body resolution, appears to be correct. The primary intention of the said provisions seems to be increasing representation and ensuring that each taluka has at least one delegate on the Executive Committee, rather than limiting the number of office bearers per taluka. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is dismissed, the Order summed up.
