Amateur Kabaddi Association Haryaya v. Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India and Ors

CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 1 o oINoTHEoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoHIGHoCOURToATo CHANDIGARHo o o o o o o o o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M).o o o o o o Reservedoon:o 25.07.2023.ooo DateoofoDecision:oo17.08.2023.o o o AMATEURoKABADDIoASSOCIATIONoHARYAYAo o ..oPetitionero Versuso AMATEURoKABADDIoFEDERATIONoOFoINDIAoANDoORSoo o ...oRespondentso o CORAM:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVINODoS.oBHARDWAJ.o o Arguedobyoo Mr.oChetanoMittal,oSr.oAdvocate,owitho o o o o Mr.oUditoGarg,oAdvocate,oo o o o o o Mr.oRitvikoGarg,oAdvocate,oandooo o o o o Ms.oShifalioGoyal,oAdvocate,oo oo o forotheopetitioner.oo Mr.oSudhiroNar,oSr.oPaneloCounsel,oo o o o fororespondentoNo.1/UOI.oo Mr.oAnmoloRattanoSidhu,oSr.oAdvocate,owithoo o o Mr.oShivoKumaroSharma,oAdvocate,oo o o o Ms.oTejaswinioYadav,oAdvocate,oo o o Mr.oU.K.oAgnihotri,oAdvocate,oandoo o o Ms.oAnshuloAgnihotri,oAdvocate,oo o o o forotheorespondentoNo.2.oo o VINODoS.oBHARDWAJ,oJ.oo oo Theoquestionsowhichoariseoforodeterminationoinotheo presentopetitionoisoasotoowhetherotheoAdministrator,owhooisovestedo withotheopowersoofotheoPresidentoofotheorespondentoAKFI,ocouldo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 2 haveoreferredoaodisputeotootheoSoleoArbitratoro(whichosuchopower,o ifoany,oisowithotheoGeneralobody)owhereotheoByeolawsoprovideoao remedyoofoAppealoandowhereotheopetitionofororeferenceoofodisputeo tooarbitrationohadobeenowithdrawnoearlierowithoutoanyolibertyoando asotoowhetherosuchoreferenceoisobadoforowantoofoauthorityoinotheo persono(Administrator)otoomakeosuchoreferenceoandoliableotoobeo setoasideowithoalloconsequentialoproceedings.o oo Challengeo ino theo presento petitiono iso too theo ordero datedo 15.02.2021o passedo byo theo Administratoro ofo Amateuro KabaddioFederationoofoIndiaowherebyoheohasoreferredotheoappealo againstoaffiliationoofotheoRespondentoNo.2o–oHaryanaoKabaddio Associationo witho AKFIo too ano Arbitratoro alongo witho theo consequentialo ordero datedo 19.02.2021o nominatingo ao soleo arbitratoroforoadjudicationoofootheosaidoappeal.oo FACTSo o o Thatotheopetitioner-AmateuroKabaddioAssociationoofo Haryanao (hereinaftero referredo too aso "AKAH")o iso ao registeredo StateoLeveloSportsoAssociationoforotheogameoofoKabaddioundero theoHaryanaoRegistrationoandoRegulationoofoSocietiesoAct,o2012o (hereinafterotoobeoreferredotooaso"theoActoofo2012").oItoclaimsotoo beo affiliatedo witho theo respondento No.1-o theo Amateuro Kabaddio FederationoofoIndiaowhichoisotheoNationaloSportsoFederationoforo theoabovesaidosport.oTheorespondentoNo.1oAKFIobeingotheoapexo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 3 bodyoforotheogameoofoKabaddioinoIndia,oisoexclusivelyoentitledotoo recommendoteamotoorepresento'India'oforotheoInternationaloevents.o Foro dischargingo sucho functions,o theo grantso comeo fromo theo Government/Uniono ofo India.o Theo AKFIo iso thuso coveredoundero 'agencieso ando instrumentalitieso ofo State'o undero theo aegiso ofo Articleo12oofotheo Constitutionoofo India.oTheo respondento No.1-AKFIohasobeenomanagingoandocontrollingotheogameoofoKabaddio fromo lasto moreo thano 50o yearso ando variouso Stateo Level/Uniono Territoryo Kabaddio Associationso areo theomemberso ofotheo AKFIo andoconstituteotheoGeneraloBodyoofoAKFI.oo o o Initially,o foro theo purposeo ofo controllingo ando managingo theo gameo ofo Kabaddio ino theo Stateo ofo Haryana,o theo Haryanao Kabaddio Associationo (here-in-aftero referredo too aso "HKA")-respondento No.2o waso registeredo undero theo Societieso Registrationo Act,o 1860,o ino theo yearo 1985o ando waso grantedo membershipoofotheoAKFI.oTheoStateoofoHaryanaopromulgatedotheo Actoofo2012oono26.03.2012orepealingotheoSocietiesoRegistrationo Acto ofo 1860o withino itso territorialo jurisdiction.o Undero theo mandatoryoprovisionsoofotheoActoofo2012,oeveryoSocietyoworkingo ando registeredo ino theo Stateo ofo Haryanao undero theo Societieso RegistrationoAct,o1860,owasorequiredotoore-registeroitselfoundero theoprovisionoofoActoofo2012.oSectiono9o(1)othereofooprovidesoforo registrationoofonewoSocietiesowhileoSectiono9o(4)oofotheoActoofo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 4 2012oprescribedoforore-registrationoofotheoexistingoSocietiesoando applyoforoaoneworegistrationowithinoaoperiodoofo2oyears.oTheoActo ofo2012oandotheorulesonotifiedothereunderoprovidedonotoonlyoforoao distincto applicationo undero separateo provisionso buto alsoo foro ao distinctocertificateooforegistrationounderoseparateoForm.oWhileoano applicationo foro registrationo iso requiredo too beo submittedo ino statutoryo Form-IIo ando theo certificateo ofo Registrationo iso issuedo underoForm-III,otheoapplicationoforore-registrationoofoanoexistingo societyoisorequiredotoobeosubmittedounderoaostatutoryoForm-VIoando theo revisedo certificateo iso issuedo undero Formo VII.o Separateo registersoareoalsoomaintainedoforoeachoofosuchosocietiesounderotheo Actoofo2012.oEvenothoughotheoerstwhileoHKAoowasoregisteredo undero theo Societieso Registrationo Act,o 1860o ino theo yearo 1985,o however,oitodidonotogetoitselfore-registeredounderotheoActoofo2012o andoinsteadoanoapplicationoforofreshoregistrationounderoSectiono 9(1)oofotheoActoofo2012owasosubmittedobyotheorespondentoNo.2-o HKA,ooinostatutoryoFormo–IIowhereuponoaofreshocertificateoinoao statutoryoForm-IIIowasoissuedotooitoono07.12.2015.oAsoitoseizedotoo beoaocontinuationoofotheoerstwhileobodyoonohavingobeenoregisteredo asoaonewoentity,oitowasorequiredotooseekoaofreshoaffiliationowithotheo AKFI.ooAoseparateoclaimoforoaffiliationowithotheoAKFIowasoalsoo filedobyotheopetitioneroasotheoStateosportsoAssociation.oo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 5 oo oo Uponoconsiderationoofotheorivaloclaimotooaffiliationo andotheototalityoofocircumstancesoincludingothatotheorespondento no.2oHKAocouldonotobeodeemedoasocontinuationooroalter-egooofo theoerstwhileo society,o theo respondento No.1-AKFIo affiliatedotheo petitioneroasoagainstorespondentoNo.2.oApartofromobeingoaonewo registeredo Society,o latero ino pointo ofo timeo thano theo petitioner,o certainootheroissuesoandodefectsowereoalsoonoticedobyotheoAKFIo whileorejectingotheoclaimooforespondentoNo.2-HKAoforoaffiliation.o ItowasoalsoorecordedothatosinceoelectionotootheoExecutiveoBodieso ofotheoerstwhileoHKAohadonotobeenoheldoaoshowocauseonoticeo datedo30.03.2017o(AnnexureoP-6)owasoissuedotoorespondentoNo.2-HKAo byo theo respondento No.1-AKFI.o Theo respondento No.2,o however,o failedo too submito anyo replyo despiteo opportunity,o whereupon,o video itso ordero datedo 02.05.2017o (Annexureo P-7)o respondento No.1o –o AKFIo disaffiliatedo respondento No.2o aso itso member,o ino exerciseo ofo itso powerso containedo undero Articleso

29.1.2;o22.5oando24.5oofotheoMemorandumoofoAssociationoando ConstitutionoofotheoAKFI.oItowasospecificallyoobservedothereino thatotheolastodemocraticoelectionsoofoHKAohadotakenoplaceoono

17.04.2011oandothatonooelectionsowereoheldothereafter.oItowasoalsoo noticedothatoitowasoregisteredoasoaonewoAssociationoono07.12.2015o ando memberso ofo theo aboveo Associationo areo differento fromo membersoofotheoerstwhileoAssociationoaffiliatedowithotheoAKFI,o hence,oitocouldonotoclaimoitselfotoobeosameoAssociation.oItowaso CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 6 alsooadvisedothatotheorespondentoNo.2oHKAoshouldonotouseotheo termo"AffiliatedotooAmateuroKabaddioFederationoofoIndia".ooo oo Theo aboveo saido ordero ofo 02.05.2017o ofo refusalo ofo affiliationowasochallengedobyotheoHKAothroughoCWPoNo.10861o ofo2017.oTheocontentionsoofotheoHKAoasopetitionerothereino(theo respondento No.2o herein)o waso too theo effecto thato theyo wereo noto grantedoanoopportunityoofofilingotheiroresponse,ohence,otheoordero ofo refusingo affiliationo waso ino violationo ofo theo Principleso ofo NaturaloJusticeoandoonocertainootherogroundsoonomerits.oo o oo Afterohearingocounseloforotheorespectiveopartiesoando withoutoexaminingotheomeritsoofotheocase,othisoCourtonoticedothato thereoappearedotoobeoaoviolationoofoprinciplesoofonaturalojusticeo andoaccordingly,otheoaboveosaidoorderodatedo02.05.2017owasoseto asideosolelyoonotheogroundothatotheopetitionerothereino(respondento No.2oherein)owasonotograntedoproperoopportunityotoocontestotheo showocauseonotice.oAotimeoscheduleowasothereafterofixedoforotheo partiesotooappearoandosubmitotheiroresponse(s)oandotheoAKFIowaso too passo ao fresho speakingo order.o Theo aboveo CWPo no.10861o ofo 2017owasoaccordinglyodisposedooffoinoaboveotermsobyotheoHigho Courtovideoitsoorderodatedo18.05.2017o(AnnexureoP-8).oo o o Pursuanto thereto,o theo respondento No.1o –AKFIo appointedo ano Ombudsmano (ao formero judgeo ofo Rajasthano Higho Court)otoolookointootheoclaimoandoobjectionsoofotheorespondento CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 7 HKAoandotoomakeohisorecommendation.ooUponoconsiderationoofo theo rivalo claims,o theo Ombudsmano recordedo ao findingo thato theo HKAofailedotooholdoperiodicaloelectionsoandohenceoviolatedotheo MemorandumoofoAssociationoandoConstitutionoofoAKFIoandoalsoo thatothereoaocompleteochangeoofotheocompositionoofotheoerstwhileo Societyoandotheorespondentono.2.oAodecisionowasothusotakenotooo disaffiliateorespondentoNo.2ovideoorderodatedo09.06.2017.oo oo Theosaidoorderodatedo09.06.2017oalongwithotheolettero ofodisaffiliationowasochallengedoinoCWPoNo.20912-2017otitledoaso 'Haryanao Kabaddio Associationo Versuso Amateuro Kabaddio FederationoofoIndiaoandoothers.oThisoCourtonoticedotheoconsensuso ofotheopartiesothatotheoOmbudsmanowasonotocompetentotoopassotheo aboveosaidoorderoofodisaffiliationoandothatosuchoanoorderocouldo onlyohaveobeenopassedobyotheoGeneraloAssemblyoofotheoAKFIoino termsoofoClauseo29oofotheoMemorandumoofoAssociationoandotheo Constitutiono ofo theo AKFI.o Accordingly,o theo writo petitiono waso disposedo ofo settingo asideo theo ordero aso wello aso theo lettero ofo disaffiliationo datedo 9.6.2017o ando theo mattero waso sento too theo GeneraloAssemblyowithotheoobservationothatotheopartiesoshallobeo atolibertyotooraiseoallotheoissuesoavailableotoothemoandotheoGeneralo AssemblyoofotheoAKFIoshallodecideotheomatteroafreshoafterogivingo propero opportunityo ofo hearingo too theo respectiveo partieso ando ino CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 8 o o T#eo /$ttero )$so $((ordin %"o p%$(edo !e,oreo t#eo *ener$%oAsse/!%"oo,oAKFIo)#i(#oisoundisputed%"ost$tedotoo!eo 'estedo )it#o t#eo e=(%usi'eo po)erso too de(ideo ono t#eo issueo o,o $,,i%i$tionoo,o$n"oo,ot#eoSt$teoBodies.Me/!eroBodies.oo o o Pursu$nto too t#eo $!o'eo s$ido ordero p$ssedo !"o t#iso Courto ino CDPo No.168-1916-E&o $o /eetin o o,o t#eo *ener$%o Asse/!%"o)$so(on'enedoono61.--.16-Eo$ndode(isiono)$sotoo!eo t$+en.o T#eo 'otin o ono t#eo de(isiono )$so $%soo #e%do $ndo !"o $o /$0orit"o o,o 5CI6Bo 'oteso o,o t#eo *ener$%o Asse/!%"&o respondento No.19HKAo )$so $ $ino dis$,,i%i$ted&o !ro$d%"o ono t#eo ,o%%o)in o t#reeo roundsI9o "This is with reference to the above orders dated 18-05-2017 and 19-09-2017 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. An opportunity of hearing has been given to you by the General Body of the AKFI and in pursuance thereof, a decision has been taken by the General Body of the AKFI, in its meeting dated 02-11-2017 held at Hotel Golden Tulip, M.I. Road Jaipur which was attended by 60 Representatives of AKFI including your good self.

After having elaborate discussions and close scrutiny of facts, the General Body of the AKFI with a majority of 54-03 votes (as per secret ballot demanded by you is of the opinion that the erstwhile Haryana Kabaddi Association (bearing Reg. No. CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 9 193/1985-86), represented by the District members has become a defunct and de-registered, by virtue of section 9 (4) of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act 2012. The present newly registered Haryana Kabaddi Association which claims to be the erstwhile association is not the same entity inasmuch as the composition of newly registered Haryana Kabaddi Association has been changed completely and the registered bye-laws/ constitution of newly registered Haryana Kabaddi Association (Reg. No. 1748/2015) gives voting right to individual members only and curtails the voting rights of the institutions (district-associations) which is in direct contravention of the National Sports Development Code, 2011-issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India. The purportedly elected District representatives of the Haryana Kabaddi Association had never participated in the alleged meetings of

07.11.2015, 08.11.2015, and 15.11.2015 and further, as per 3.10 and 3.19 of the National Sports Development Code 2011, the district associations are required to be the constituents of the association with full voting rights and the individuals though elected, do not have any voting rights whatsoever. The newly registered Haryana Kabaddi Association (Reg. No. 1748/2015) is clearly not the erstwhile Haryana Kabaddi Association (Registration No. 193 / 1985). Only the name of the association has been misused for registration of a new association which had actually never ever applied to the AKFI CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 10 for recognition and the AKFI at no point of time ever recognised this association (Haryana Kabaddi Association Reg. No. 1748/2015).

That during the intervening period, the participation of Haryana Kabaddi Association was because of the same name used by it and the same person leading the association. Needless to say that the AKFI was completely misled & the communications sent to the Haryana Kabaddi Association during 2014 to 2017 were because of the above said confusion.

The present executive committee of newly registered association in the name and style of the 'Haryana Kabaddi Association' has been elected only amongst the 11 initial individual members having shown present in the meetings dated

07.11.2015, 08.11.2015 and 15.11.2015 and the same cannot be treated as valid representation of democratically elected district representatives as the same shall be in violation of 3.10 and 3.19 of the National Sports Development Code, 2011. In the newly registered association, you have included the persons of your choice with voting rights, with an intention of having single handed control & dominion over the elections of the association whereas grass root representation of Districts has been deprived from exercising voting rights. This makes the newly registered Haryana Kabaddi Association (Reg. No. 1748/2015) a pocketed CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 11 association working for personal gains & ignoring the interest of the game of Kabaddi

The composition of the 'Haryana Kabaddi Association (Reg. No. 01748 dt. 07-12-2015) and the erstwhile 'Haryana Kabaddi Association (Reg. No. 193/1985-86) are altogether different. The newly registered 'Haryana Kabaddi Association (Reg. No. 01748 dt. 07-12-2015) was never recognized by the AKFI and the General Body of the AKFI has refused to recognize the same due to the above.

The 'Haryana Kabaddi Association (Reg. No. 01748 dt. 07-12-2015) is clearly not a Member Unit of AKFI & therefore, you are advised not to use the term 'affiliated to Amateur Kabaddi Federation of India or a member unit of AKF'I." o o o T#eo$!o'eos$idode(isionoo,ot#eo*ener$%oAsse/!%"oo,o t#eo AKFIo )$so $ $ino (#$%%en edo !"o HKAo !"o ,i%in o CDPo No.18@C@916-Eotit%edo$so>H$r"$n$oK$!$ddioAsso(i$tionoVersuso A/$teuro K$!$ddio Feder$tiono o,o Indi$?o !e,oreo t#iso Court.o T#eo $!o'eos$ido)rito)$sode(idedo!"ot#isoCourto'ideoitsoorderod$tedo

11.-1.16-Eo$,teronoti(in ot#$tot#ereo)$so$opro'isionoo,o$ppe$%o$so perot#eoC%$useo1C.Aoo,oMOAo$ndoConstitutionoo,oAKFI.oIto)$so $%soo noti(edo t#$to t#eo Appe%%$teo Bod"o iso desi n$tedo $so $no >Ar!itr$tionoCo//ission?o$soperot#eoConstitutionoo,ot#eoAKFIo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 12 ando thato sucho Bodyo hado noto beeno constituted.o Accordingly,o compressiveo directionso wereo issuedo byo thiso Courto directingo respondentoNo.1-AKFIotooconstituteotheoArbitrationoCommissiono i.e.o theo Appellateo Bodyo ando upono theo saido Bodyo beingo madeo functional,otheoinformationowasotoobeosuppliedotootheorespondento HKAoaboutotheoconstitutionoofotheosaidoAppellateoAuthority.oAo furthero periodo ofo 21o dayso waso grantedo too respondento No.2o too preferoitsoappealoafteroreceiptoofoinformationoandoaofinaloorderowaso thereafterorequiredotoobeopassedoonotheoappealobyotheoAppellateo Authorityoviz.otheoArbitrationoCommission.oTheorelevantoextracto ofo theo directionso issuedo byo thiso Courto ino itso ordero datedo

22.12.2017o passedo ino CWPo No.29848-2017o areo reproducedo aso under:o o "Afterohearingolearnedocounseloforotheopartieso ando takingo intoo considerationo theo aforesaido factso andocircumstances,otheopresentopetitionoisodisposedo ofowithotheofollowingodirections:o k Theo righto too appealo iso createdo ino theo MemorandumoofoAssociationoandoConstitutiono ofotheoAKFIowhichohasotoobeoprovidedotootheo petitioner.o k Ifo theo Arbitrationo Commission,o aso statedo byo theolearnedo counseloforo respondento No.1,o iso noto functionalo theno ito haso too beo madeo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 13 k Theo petitionero shallo beo informedo byo respondentoNo.1oaboutotheoconstitutionoofotheo ArbitrationoCommissionowithino15odaysofromo theo dateo ofo receipto ofo certifiedo copyo ofo thiso orderoandotheopetitioneroshallobeograntedo21o daysotimeotoofileotheoappealothereafter.oo k Ito iso madeo clearo thato ono theo filingo ofo ano appeal,otheoArbitrationoCommissionoshallotryo toodecideotheosameoasoearlyoasopossibleobuto preferablyo withino ao periodo ofo threeo monthso fromo theo dateo ofo initiationo ofo theo proceedings."o o o Inocomplianceotootheoabovesaidoorderopassedobyotheo Higho Court,o theo respondento No.1o constitutedo theo Appellateo Authorityodesignatedoaso'ArbitrationoCommission'ounderoArticleo

24.6oofotheoMemorandumoofoAssociationoandoConstitutionoofotheo AKFI.oAnointimationowasothereafterosentotoorespondentoNo.2ovideo communicationo datedo 08.01.2018o (Annexureo P-11)o informingo thato theo Arbitrationo Commissiono hado beeno madeo functional.o Further,o theo AKFIo alsoo conveyedo theo nameso ofo threeo personso (formero judgeso ofo Higho Courts)o ando ano optiono waso madeo too respondento No.2o too chooseo anyo oneo ofo them.o Receipto ofo theo aforesaidocommunicationoisoneitherodisputedonorodeniedobyotheo respondentoNo.2,ohowever,oitochoseonototoorespondotootheoaboveo saidocommunicationooroexerciseoanooptionoand/orotoofileoanoappealo beforeotheoArbitrationoCommission.oRatherotheorespondentoNo.2o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 14 approachedothisoCourtobyowayoofoanoArbitrationoPetitionoNo.42oofo 2018oinvokingopowersounderoSectiono11oofotheoArbitrationoando Conciliationo Act,o 1996o foro appointmento ofo ano Arbitrator.o Theo saido Arbitrationo Petitiono waso eventuallyo withdrawno byo respondentoNo.2obyofilingoCMoNo.27942oofo2018oandowithouto seekingo anyo libertieso too pursueo anyo alternativeo remedies.o Accordingly,o video ordero datedo 21.12.2018,o theo Arbitrationo PetitionoNo.42oofo2018owasodismissedoasowithdrawn.oo o ApartofromotheoaboveoproceedingsobeforeothisoCourt,o ao Writo Petitiono (Civil)o bearingo No.4601o ofo 2013o titledo aso 'MahipaloSinghoandoothersoVersusoUnionoofoIndiaoandoothers'ohado beeno filedo beforeo theo Delhio Higho Courto challengingo theo amendmentso too theo Memorandumo ofo Associationo ando ConstitutionooforespondentoNo.1-AKFIowherebyotheorespondento No.5othereinohadobeenoenabledotoobeonominatedoasoPresidentoofo theoAKFI.oAofurtherochallengeowasoalsooraisedotootheoelectiono heldo ono 19.05.2013o foro theo variouso postso ofo officeo bearerso ofo respondentoNo.1-AKFI.oAoprayeroforoappointmentoofoReturningo Officero foro conductingo fairo ando impartialo electiono too theo Governingo Bodyo ofo AKFIo waso alsoo madeo ino additiono too appointmento ofo ano ad-hoco Committeeo comprisingo ofo sportso personsotoooverseeotheodayotoodayofunctioningoofotheoAKFI.oVideo itsojudgmentodatedo03.08.2018,otheoDelhioHighoCourtoallowedotheo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 15 s$ido)ritopetitiono$ndo$%sooseto$sideot#eoe%e(tionoo,ot#eoPresidento o,ot#eoAKFIo$ndoopro(eededotoo$ppointo$noAd/inistr$torotoot$+eo o'ero(ontro%oo,ot#eoAKFIo$ndotoo$d/inistero$%%oitso$,,$irs.oHeo)$so orderedotooosu!stituteot#eoPresidentoo,ot#eoAKFIo$ndotooe=er(iseo $%%osu(#opo)erso)#i(#oe=isted&o#ereto,ore&oinot#eoPresidentoo,ot#eo AKFI.oT#eooper$ti'eop$rtoo,ot#eo$,ores$idotiud /entoo,ot#eoDe%#io Hi #oCourtod$tedo6B.6@.16-@oisoe=tr$(tedo$sounderIo "77. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present writ petition. Resultantly, Clauses 8.9,

15.22, 15.8 and 17.2 of the amended MOA of the AKFI, are struck down as illegal. The appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Life President of the AKFI, is also, consequently, declared illegal. Equally, the election and consequent appointment of Respondent No. 5, as President of the AKFI, on 19th May, 2013 and 23rd April, 2017, are also declared illegal, and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶78Given the totally clandestine and surreptitious manner in which the provisions of the MOA were illegally amended, in order to enable Respondent No. 5 to contest for the post of President, we further direct that Respondent No. 5 render accounts of all financial benefits, which have enured to Respondent No. 5, as and in her capacity as President of the AKFI since the time of her appointment to the said post on 19 th May, 2013 until date, and the same be recovered from her, forthwith. CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 16

¶79Additionally, in view of the apparent anarchy, prevailing in the affairs of the AKFI, owing to the machinations of Respondents No. 4 and 5, we are of the opinion that it would be necessary, to preserve the very existence of the AKFI, to entrust its control and affairs to an impartial Administrator. We, therefore, issue additionally, the following directions:

(i) We appoint Shri Sanat Kaul, IAS (Retd.) as Administrator, who would, till further orders, take over control of the AKFI, and administer all its affairs. He shall stand substituted in place of the President of the AKFI, and shall be entitled to exercise all powers which existed, heretofore, in the President of the AKFI.

(ii) The Administrator shall ensure that the Electoral College of the AKFI is prepared, and elections held, in accordance with the Model Election Guidelines, within three months thereof.

(iii) The body so elected shall carry out the amendments to the MOA, to bring it in conformity with the NSCI.

(iv) Once this is done, a fresh round of elections shall be carried out, as per the amended MOA and in terms of the NSCI, ensuring that all stipulations in the NSCI, including age and tenure restrictions, are strictly complied with.

(v) The entire exercise shall be carried out within CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 17

(vi) The AKFI shall make available to the Administrator an appropriate office space and facilities for the discharge of the aforesaid directions and make available such staff and personnel as the Administrator may express the need for. Alternatively, the Administrator may appoint such personnel to assist him in the aforesaid matter and expense towards the same shall be borne by the AKFI.

(vii) Till the elections are conducted and results declared in consonance of the NSCI and in compliance with the preceding directions, the AKFI shall not make any new financial commitments except with the prior approval of the Administrator. Routine expenses of AKFI too shall be defrayed, with the due prior approval of the Administrator.

(viii) The Administrator would submit a three-monthly report, to this Court, so as to enable this Court to be satisfied that the affairs of the AKFI are in order. The monthly remuneration of the Administrator is fixed at ₹ 1,00,000/- per month apart from miscellaneous expenses, tour and travel, secretarial assistance, etc., on actuals which would be disbursed, by the 5th of every month, by Respondent No. 1.

(ix) The Bank accounts and other assets of AKFI shall be handed, and dealt with, only by the Administrator, or such other person (s), CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 18 whomo heo mayo chooseo too depute/appointo ino thisoregard."o o o o o AfterotheoappointmentoofotheoAdministratoroofotheo respondentoNo.1-AKFI,otheolistoofoelectoralocollegeoforotheofirsto roundoofoelectionoofotheoExecutiveoMembersoofotheoAKFIowaso preparedobyotheoAdministratoroandoobjectionsofromoalloaffiliatedo memberso wereo invited.o Theo petitionero nominatedo itso twoo representativeso foro theo electoralo collegeo againsto whicho theo objectionso wereo filedo byo respondento No.2-o HKA.o o Theo Administratorothusoproceededotoohearotheorespectiveopartiesoono theoobjectionoraisedotootheorepresentativesoofotheoaffiliatedounit.o Afteroconsideringotheorivalosubmissions,otheoAdministratoropassedo ano ordero datedo 25.01.2019o (Annexureo P13),o wherebyo theo objectionsoraisedobyotheorespondentoNo.2oagainstorepresentativeo nominatedobyopetitionerowereonotoacceptedoandotheoclaimoofotheo petitioner,o aso theo affiliatedo Stateo Sportso Associationo waso accepted.oTheorelevantopartoofotheoorderodatedo25.01.2019opassedo byotheoAdministratoroshowsothatoaospecificoreferenceowasomadeotoo theo earliero roundo ofo litigationo initiatedo ato theo instanceo ofo respondentoNo.2oasoalsootheofactothatorespondentoNo.2ohadochoseno nototoooptoforoanyoofotheoMembersoofotheoArbitrationoCommissiono foro adjudicatingo itso appealo ando alsoo noto too prefero anyo appealo beforeotheoAppellateoAuthority.oItowasoalsoonoticedothatoaopetitiono CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 19 ,oro $ppoint/ento o,o $no Ar!itr$toro #$do $%soo !eeno ,i%edo !"o respondento No.1o $ndo t#eo s$/eo )$so )it#dr$)no )it#outo $n"o ,urt#ero %i!erties.o T#eo Ad/inistr$toro ,in$%%"o #e%do t#$to t#eo dis$,,i%i$tionoo,orespondentoNo.1o7oHKAo#$donoto!eenoseto$sideo $ndo t#$to $so $o ne(ess$r"o (onse2uen(eo t#ereo,&o t#eo petitionero 7o AKAHo (ontinuedo too !eo $,,i%i$tedo unito o,o Respondento No.-o 7o AKFI.o E%e(tionso o,o t#eo AKAHo )ereo du%"o (ondu(tedo ino t#eo presen(eoo,ot#eoO!ser'erso,ro/ot#eorespondentoNo.-9AKFIoono

18.-6.16-Eo$ndoito#$so!eenoper,or/in o'$riouso$(ti'itiesore%$tin o tooK$!$ddi.oT#eore%e'$ntop$rtoo,ot#eo$!o'es$idoorderoisoe=tr$(tedo $sounderIo "It has come on record that previously HKA was the affiliated unit of AKFI. However vide show cause notice dated 03.05.2017, AKFI withdrew its affiliation. A new Body AKA Haryana came into existence and AKFI conferred affiliation to it. Apparently, there was some dispute between Mr. Vijay Prakash, the President and Mr. Kuldeep Dalal the Secretary of HKA. Mr. Kuldeep Dalal submitted his recognition and subsequently became the General Secretary of AKAH. Both the parties were asked to explore possibility of settlement as they were part of the same Association. Both the parties expressed their desire to resolve the dispute amicably. It is on record that the Objector had challenged the withdrawal of affiliation by filing CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 20 CWP No.10861/2017 which was decided on

18.05.2017. Order dated 02.05.2017 was set aside on the ground that Mr. Vijay Prakash was not given the opportunity to contest the show cause notice. Order dated 19.09.2017 in CWP No. 20912/2017 reveals that the said petition was disposed off and the matter was sent back to General Assembly of AKFI to decide the dispute in terms of Clause 29 of the Memorandum of Association and Constitution of AKFI, Again HKA filed CWP 29848 of 2017 which came to be disposed by an order dated 22.12.2017. The Arbitration Commission was directed to be made functional and to decide the dispute as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 months. It is not disputed that AKFI appointed 3 former judges of Rajasthan High Court, Justice K.S. Rathore, Justice I.S. Israni and Justice Mahesh Sharma and conveyed it to the petitioner/objector on 08.01.2018. The petitioner was not satisfied with the appointment of the Arbitrators and again filed Arbitration Petition No.42/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court. While the said petition was pending, the Objector filed the objections in question. There is change of circumstances after the hearing of the objections. The Objector moved an application under Section 151 CPC for withdrawal of the said petition as he wished to pursue his remedy before Administrator AKFI and to resolve all the disputes with the respondents therein amicably. By an order dated 21.12.2018, the said application for withdrawal of petition was allowed. CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 21 Apparently the disaffiliation which was challenged by the Objector of HKA has not yet been set aside so far. The AKAH continues to be the affiliated unit of AKFI. Its elections have been conducted in the presence of the observers from AKFI on 29.10.2017. It has performed various activities relating to Kabaddi since it came into existence. Allegations regarding irregularities and illegalities in the running of AKFI and financial benefits enjoyed by the previous Presidents cannot be gone into at this stage without conducting detailed inquiry in due course. Names of the representatives of the affiliated unit have been called only for a limited purpose to prepare an "Electoral College" to constitute an elected body in terms of the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for the purpose to amend the Constitution of AKFI to make it compliant with NSCI Code. The first round of election is to be carried out and after the amendment in terms of the order, the second round of election to elect a body is to be performed. So far the purpose of first round of election, names of the representatives of AKAH are to be accepted." oo o o T#eo$!o'eos$idoorderop$ssedo!"ot#eoAd/inistr$toro )$so$%soonoto(#$%%en edo!"ot#eorespondentoNo.1o!e,oreo$n"oot#ero Court.Foru/.o Inste$d&o t#eo respondento No.1o ,i%edo Drito Petitiono 3Ci'i%4o!e$rin oNo.-BC6oo,o16-8o!e,oreot#eoDe%#ioHi #oCourto,oroo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 22 seekingo issuanceo ofo directionso too theo Administratoro too issueo AffiliationotootheorespondentoNo.2-oHKAoandotooallowothemotooo representoonobehalfoofotheoStateoofoHaryanaoinootheronationaloando internationalo sportingo events.o However,o theo aboveo saido writo petitionowasoalsoowithdrawnobyotheorespondentoNo.2-HKAovideo orderodatedo08.02.2019o(AnnexureoR-26).oNoolibertyowasosoughto foroorograntedobyotheoHon'bleoDelhioHighoCourtotoorespondento No.2otoofileoanyofreshopetitionoonotheosameocauseoofoaction.o o o Thereafter,oaosecondoroundoofoelectionoofoAKFIowaso alsooheldoono01.09.2019.oFreshoobjectionsofiledobyotheorespondento No.2o –o HKAo againsto theo petitionero –o AKAHo too represento theo StateoofoHaryanaoinotheoelectionsoofotheoFederation.oTheosameo wasoagainorejectedobyotheoPresident/AdministratoroofotheoAKFIo afteroalsoonoticingothatoobjectionsooforespondentoNo.2ohadoalreadyo -beenorejectedoonoanoearlierooccasionoasowellobyoaodetailedoordero datedo 25.01.2019o (Annexureo P-13)o ando theo saido ordero hado becomeofinalobetweenotheoparties.oItowasospecificallyoheldobyotheo Administrator/Presidento ofo theo respondento No.1-AKFIo thato theo respondento No.2o couldo noto beo permittedo too attendo theo Annualo GeneraloBodyoMeetingoofotheoAKFIoandothatotheonamesosentobyo themo wereo liableo too beo rejected.o Theo saido objectionso wereo dismissedo byo theo sameo Administrator/Presidento ofo AKFI,o whoo hadonoworeferredotheodisputeotootheoSoleoArbitrator.oEvenotheo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 23 aforesaidoorderopassedobyotheoAdministratoroinotheosecondoroundo ofoelectionsowasonotochallengedobyotheorespondentoNo.2-HKAo beforeoanyootheroForum/Court.oo o o Afteromaintainingosilenceoforoaoperiodoofonearlyo20o months,o ao representationo waso submittedo byo respondento No.1-HKAo ono 07.09.2020o too theo Administratoro too appointo ano ArbitratorounderoArticleo24.6oofotheoMemorandumoofoAssociationo andoConstitutionoofotheoAKFI.oo oo Noticeoofotheoaboveosaidorepresentation/applicationo wasoissuedotootheopetitioner-AKAHoandoaodetailedoresponseowaso submittedotootheosameoono10.12.2020otakingonumerousoobjectionso includingoothatotheoAdministratorohadonoopowerooroauthorityotoo appointo ano Arbitratoro ando thato theo respondento No.2-HKAo hado abandonedoand/orowaivedoitsorightsotoogetotheodisputeoresolvedo throughotheoappellateomechanismohavingofailedotoorespondotootheo communicationo sento byo theo AKFI.o Notwithstandingo thato thereo hadobeenothreeoroundoofowritopetitionsoandoanoArbitrationoPetitionoo beeno filedo earliero beforeo thiso Courto aso alsoo dismissalo ofo theo objectionso ono twoo occasionso byo theo Administratoro ando withdrawalo ofo writo petitiono fromo theo Delhio Higho Court,o theo AdministratoroallowedotheorepresentationoofotheorespondentoNo.2-HKAoandodecidedotooreferotheomatter/appealotootheoArbitrator.o Videosubsequentoorderodatedo19.02.2021o(AnnexureoP-18),otheo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 24 respondentoNo.3owasoappointedoasoSoleoArbitratorotooadjudicateo theoissueoamongstotheoparties.oTheoissueoisopendingobeforeotheo Soleo Arbitratoro ando ano applicationo undero Sectiono 16o ofo theo ArbitrationoandoConciliationoAct,o1996ohasoalsoobeenofiledobyotheo petitioneroandotheosameoisopendingobeforeotheoArbitrator.oo oo Atotheosameotime,otheopetitioneropreferredotheoinstanto writopetitionobeforeothisoCourtochallengingotheoaforesaidoorderoofo theoAdministratoroono22.03.2021oandopriorotooappearanceobeforeo theoSoleoArbitratorotoodefendotheirorightsoandowithoutoprejudiceotoo theo remedyo alreadyo availed.o Video ordero datedo 05.05.2021,o theo proceedingsobeforeotheoSoleoArbitratorohadobeenostayedobyothiso Court.oo REPLYo o o Despiteo serviceo ofo notice,o theo respondento No.1-AKFIohasochosenonototooappearoinotheoproceedingsobeforeothiso Court.oAoseparateoreplyowas,ohowever,ofiledobyorespondentoNo.2-HKAo whereinoitohaso beeno assertedothato itoiso aodulyo registeredo associationoworkingoinotheofieldoofopromotingotheodisciplineoofo Kabaddio inotheoStateo ofo Haryanao sinceo02.07.1985.o Ito wasore-registeredoono07.12.2015oafterotheopromulgationoofotheoActoofo 2012.oTheopetitioner-AKAHowasoillegallyoinductedoandoaffiliatedo byo AKFIo ino violationo ofotheo bye-laws,o governingo Constitutiono andotheoNationaloSportsoDevelopmentoCode,o2011.oItoisopointedo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 25 outo thato earliero theo nameo ofo theo respondento No.2-HKAo waso HaryanaoStateoKabaddioAssociationo(HSKA),ohowever,oafterotheo comingointooforceoofotheoActoofo2012,otheowordo"State"owasonoto allowedotoobeousedoandohadotoobeodeletedofromoitsoname.oHence,o theosameowasore-registeredounderotheonameoofo"HaryanaoKabaddio Associationo(HKA)".oItoisostatedothatothereoareo22odistrictsoinotheo StateoofoHaryanaoandoasosuchothereoareo22ounits/membersoofotheo respondentoNo.2-HKA.oItosentoaoletteroono05.12.2016otooAKFIoaso welloasotootheoSecretaryoGeneral,oHaryanaoOlympicoAssociationo communicatingo theo scheduledo dateo ofo electiono too beo heldo ono

18.12.2016o ino Bhiwanio (Haryana).o Ao subsequento lettero datedo

06.12.2016owasoalsoosentotootheoDistrictoRegistraroofoSocieties,o Bhiwani,oHaryanaointimatingoaboutotheoscheduledoelections.oAo responseowasoreceivedobyotheorespondentoNo.2-HKAothatoelectiono tootheoSocietyocanobeoconductedoonceoinothreeoyearsoandoasopero theorecordoofotheorespondentoNo.2,oavailableowithotheoOfficeoofo DistrictoRegistrar,otheosameowereonotodue.oAorequestowasothuso submittedovideoletterodatedo14.12.2016otootheoDistrictoRegistraro andoitowasoagainoprayedothatotheoelectionsomayobeoallowedotoobeo conductedosinceotheoentireoGoverningoBodyooforespondentoNo.2-HKAo hado alreadyo beeno dissolved.o Ao representationo waso alsoo submittedobyoHKAotootheoAKFIoinformingothatodueotoocomingo intooforceoofotheoActoofo2012,onooSocietyooroAssociationocouldo runoitsoactivitiesounderotheooldoActoandothatotheonameohadotoobeo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 26 changedoonoaccountoofotheomandateoofotheoActoofo2012oandotheo wordso likeo "Union"o ando "State"o wereo noto allowedo too beo usedo undero theo saido Acto ofo 2012.o Ito waso thuso conveyedo thato theo RegistrationoCertificateooforespondentoNo.2-oHKAomayobeonew,o however,oitoremainsotheosameooldosociety.oDespiteotheodetailedo communication,otheoAKFIopassedoanoorderoagainstotheorespondento No.2o withouto affordingo anyo opportunityo ofo hearing.o Theo saido ordersoasowelloasotheosubsequentoorderowereosubjectomatteroofo challengeoinovariousowritopetitionsothatohaveoalreadyobeenonoticedo above.o Ito waso furthero averredo thato aso pero Clauseo 29o ofo theo Memorandumo ofo Associationo ando Constitutiono ofo respondento No.1-AKFI,oitocouldohaveodisaffiliated/de-recognized/suspendedo anyomemberounitoonoaccountoofotheofollowingoreasons:o

(i)o Non-observanceoofodirectiveoissuedobyotheoAKFI.oo

(ii)o Noto holdingo electionso aftero theo completiono ofo theo normalo tenureo foro whicho theo officeo bearerso areo elected.o

(iii)o Noto submittingo annualo auditedo statemento ofo accounts,o annualo reporto ando listo ofo currento officeo bearersowithinotheostipulatedotimeoperiod.o o o Itoisocontendedothatosinceononeoofotheoaforesaidoevento hadoeverooccurredooronoticedoinotheoimpugnedoorders,otheoAKFIo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 27 couldonotohaveodisaffiliated/de-recognizedotheorespondentoNo.2-HKA.oItocouldonotobeosaidotoobeoinodefaultoofoholdingoanyoelectiono aso ito hado sento letters/communicationso foro holdingo elections,o however,otheoDistrictoRegistraroofoFirmsoandoSocietiesodidonoto allowotheoHKAotooconductotheoelections.oHence,othereowasonoo defaultoonotheopartoofotheorespondentoNo.2-HKA.oItowasofurthero submittedo thato ito waso wronglyo recordedo ino theo order/communicationo datedo 20.11.2017o thato respondento No.2-HKAo hado becomeo defuncto ando haso beeno re-registeredo aso pero Sectiono9(4)oofotheoActoofo2012oandotheoprovisionsoofotheoActoofo 2012odoonotostipulateoanyoAssociationotoobecomeodefunctoasoiso written/interpretedobyorespondentoNo.1-AKFIoinoitsoproceedingso heldoono02.11.2017.oChallengeowasoalsooraisedotootheoreasoningo ofo theo Generalo Assemblyo ofo AKFIo ino itso meetingo heldo ono

02.11.2017oquaotheostatusooforespondentoNo.2-HKAoasoaototallyo differentoAssociationoonotheofollowingogrounds:o "(i)o Haryanao Registrationo ando Regulationo ofo Societieso Rules,o 2012o framedo undero theo Haryanao Registrationo &o Regulationo ofo SocietiesoAct,o2012ocontemplateowhatotypesoofo memberso cano beo electedo too ao registeredo Society.oInotermsoofoSectiono14oofotheosaidoAct,o itoisocontemplatedothatoaoSocietyoshalloconsisto ofominimumosevenomembersoatotheotimeoofoitso registrationo ando ito mayo admito persons,o foundingo members,o lifeo members,o ordinaryo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 28 members, associate members, tenure member or honorary member in accordance with the provisions as contained in the bye-laws.

(ii) Further, as per Haryana Registration & Regulation of Societies Rules, 2012 it was contemplated that there could be four types of members who are detailed herein-below:-

(a) Founder Members: Founder member is a member who has been admitted as a founder member at the time of registration of the society. There were 11 founder members in the Respondent No.2 Haryana Kabaddi Association

(HKA).

(b) Life Members: Life member is a member who may be admitted as a life member on payment of prescribed fee and such person can be admitted as a life member of the society. There were 31 (thirty-one) life members in the Respondent No.2 Haryana Kabaddi Association (HKA)

(c) Ordinary Member: Ordinary members in the society shall be the ones who would continue to enjoy the membership till they are not in any arrears of payment of annual subscription fee. There were 22 districts in Haryana and each district CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 29 Respondent No.2 Haryana Kabaddi Association and thus there were 44 ordinary members who were entitled to vote. d) Honorary Members: Honorary members are the ones who have distinguished talent and merits or whose association is deemed to beneficial to the society or who has rendered services of outstanding merit to the society. There were no honorary members inducted in the society. In any case, the honorary members are entitled to attend the meetings and contribute the deliberations but they have no right to vote. iii. Thus, the Respondent No.2 HKA had in due compliance of the provisions of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 and the Rules framed thereunder inducted the abovementioned members who were entitled to vote as well. iv. Thus, the allegations of the Respondent No. 1 AKFI in the minutes of meeting dated

02.11.2017 which were conveyed vide Letter dated 20.11.2017 that the earlier association had become defunct and the composition of the new association were totally baseless." o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 30 o o Ito iso thuso averredo thato theo respondento No.1-AKFIo hado actedo ino ano arbitraryo ando highhandedo mannero ando haso disaffiliatedotheorespondentoNo.2-HKAoforoinvalidoconsiderationso ando ino ano undueo hasteo whicho reflectso malafideo ino itso action.o Subsequento proceedingso initiatedo byo ito ando theo orderso passedo thereinoareoalsoonotodisputedobyotheorespondentoNo.2-HKA.oItois,o however,o contendedo byo counselo foro respondento No.2o thato theo affairso ofo theo respondento No.1-AKFI,o beingo conductedo ino ano arbitraryo manner,o wereo dulyo examinedo byo theo Higho Courto ofo Delhioinoitsojudgmentodatedo03.08.2023opassedoinoWritoPetitiono (Civil)o No.4601o ofo 2013,o whereino theo electionso ofo respondento No.1-AKFIoheldoono09.08.2013oando23.10.2017owereoheldotoobeo illegaloandowereosetoasideoincludingotheoappointmentoofotheotheno Presidento ofo respondento No.1-AKFIo ando further,o ao powero waso conferredo upono theo Presidento too prepareo ao fresho panelo ofo theo Generalo Assemblyo foro conductingo electionso too theo Governingo BodyooforespondentoNo.1-AKFI.oAoreferenceowasomadeotootheo observationo recordedo byo theo Delhio Higho Courto ino itso order/judgmento whicho impugnedo theo functionso ofo respondento No.1-AKFIoandotheomanneroinowhichotheoNationaloFederationohado beenoheldoasoaopersonalopropertyobyotheoofficeobearers.oItoisothuso contendedothatotheoGeneraloAssemblyoitselfoseizedotooexistoando theopoweroofotheoGeneraloAssemblyowereotoobeoexercisedobyotheo Administratoro himself.o Representationo waso accordinglyo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 31 submittedobeforeotheoAdministratorotoopassoanoorderoforoaffordingo ano opportunityo ofo hearing.o Ito iso furthero contendedo thato theo petitionerohavingoalreadyoappearedobeforeotheosoleoArbitrator,oallo issueso cano beo examinedo byo theo soleo Arbitratoro ando heo cannoto pleado anyo prejudiceo merelyo ono accounto ofo theo remedyo foro redressalo ofo grievanceo havingo beeno madeo availableo too theo respondento No.2o againsto itso wrongfulo disaffiliation.o Theo petitionerowasoregisteredolateroinopointoofotimeoasocomparedotoo respondentoNo.2-HKAoandocannotostealoaomarchooveroandoaboveo theo entitlemento ofo respondento No.2o too beo affiliatedo witho theo Nationalo Body-AKFI.o Ito iso alsoo averredo thato theo affiliationo grantedotootheopetitioneroisonotoinoaccordanceowithotheoNationalo SportsoDevelopmentoCode,o2011.oItoisofurtheroaverredothatotheo petitionerohasotheoremedyotootake/raiseoallopleasobeforeotheosoleo Arbitratoro includingo theo jurisdictiono ino termso ofo Sectiono 16,o whichoisostillopending.oSuchoremedyowasoalsooavailableotooitobyo filingo ano applicationo undero Sectiono 12o ofo theo Arbitrationo ando Conciliationo Act,o 1996.o Further,o theo petitionero havingo participatedo ino theo on-goingo proceedingso beforeo theo soleo ArbitratoroandohavingonotofiledoanyoapplicationounderoSectiono14o ofo theo Acto ofo 2012o seekingo termination/removalo ofo theo saido Arbitrator,othereoisonooreasonoasotoowhyotheoproceedingsobeforeo theoArbitratorooughtotoobeodiscontinuedoatothisostage.oAoprayeroforo dismissaloofotheowritopetitionowasoalsoomade.o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 32 o o Noo replyo waso filedo ono behalfo ofo theo Respondento no.3-otheosoleoarbitrator.o ARGUMENTSoOFoTHEoPETITIONERo oo Learnedoseniorocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofotheo petitionero haso vehementlyo arguedo thato theo appointmento ofo theo ArbitratorobyotheoAdministratoroisowhollyoillegal,ovoidoaboinitioo andowithoutojurisdiction.oHeohasosubmittedothatobyovirtueoofotheo orderodatedo03.08.2018opassedobyotheoHighoCourtoofoDelhi,otheo AdministratorowasoconferredowithotheopowersoofotheoPresidento only.oAsoanoAdministrator,oheohadonoopowersotooreferoanyodisputeo tooanoarbitratoroandoanyosuchopowerocouldohaveobeenoexercisedo onlyobyotheogeneraloassemblyoofotheoAKFI.oStillofurther,oasotheo ArbitraloCommissionobeingotheoAppellateoAuthorityohadoalreadyo beenoappointedoandointimationohadobeenosentotootheorespondento No.2oHKAovideoletterodatedo08.01.2018,othereowasonoooccasionooro causeoforotheoAdministratorotoohaveoappointedoaosoleoArbitratorotoo looko intoo theo subjecto mattero ofo appealo whichocouldoonlyo haveo beeno decidedo byo theo Appellateo Authorityo prescribedo ino theo frameworko ofo theo MOAo ando Constitutiono ofo AKFI.o Ito iso alsoo arguedothatoaotimeoperiodoofo21odaysotoopreferoanoappeal,oafterotheo constitutionoofotheoArbitrationoCommission,ohadobeenograntedobyo thisoHighoCourtoinoitsoorderodatedo22.12.2017o(AnnexureoP-10)o andothatotheoreferenceoofotheoappealotootheoSoleoArbitrator,omucho CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 33 afterotheoexpiryoofotheoperiodoofolimitationotoofileoanoappeal,oiso clearlyoanoattemptotooover-reachotheoorderopassedobyothisocourto aftero recordingo theo consento ofo theo partieso ando bypassingo theo statutoryoremedyoofoappealothatohasobeenoprescribed.oItoisoalsooino violationoofotheolawsoofolimitationowhichocrystallizedorightsoino favouroofotheopetitioner.oHeofurtherosubmitsothatoinoitsoessence,o theoreferenceoofoaodisputeotooaoSoleoArbitratoroisoanoexerciseoofo jurisdictionounderoSectiono11oofotheoArbitrationoandoConciliationo Act,o1996,owhereasonoosuchojurisdictionohasobeenoconferredoupono theo Administrator.o Thereo hado beeno noo arbitrationo agreemento betweeno theo partieso aso pero sectiono 7o ofo theo Arbitrationo ando ConciliationoAct,o1996otooreferoanoappealoagainstotheodecisionoofo theo AKFIo too theo Soleo Arbitrator.o Theo mereo nomenclatureo oro descriptionoofotheoappellateoauthorityoaso"ArbitraloCommission"o cannotobeoconstructedoorointerpretedotoomeanoasoresolutionoofotheo disputeothroughoano'arbitrationoproceeding.'oTheodecisionoofotheo Administratoro too makeo referenceo ofo theo issueo too arbitrationo iso henceovoidoaboinitiooforowantoofoanoauthority.oo oo Ito haso beeno furthero arguedo thato theo respondento No.2/HKAowouldobeodeemedotoohaveoabandonedoitsoclaimsoando waivedo offo allo itso rightso byo havingo noto preferredo anyo o appealo beforeotheoArbitraloCommissionowithinotheoprescribedostatutoryo timeo frameo ando aso reiteratedo byo thiso Courto ino itso ordero datedo

22.12.2017osupra.oo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 34 o ItoisofurtheroarguedothatotheoHKAoalsoopreferredoao petitionoforoseekingoreferenceoofotheodisputeotootheoArbitratoroino arbitrationoPetitionoNo.42oofo2018ofiledobeforeothisoCourt.oTheo saido arbitrationo petitiono waso withdrawno unconditionallyo ando withoutoseekingoanyoliberties.oSubsequently,oanotherowritopetitiono raisingoaoclaimothatoitowasotheostateobodyoentitledotoobeoaffiliatedo tootheoAKFIowasofiledobeforeotheoDelhioHighoCourtoandoevenotheo saidoproceedingsowereoalsoowithdrawn.oNotoonlyothat,owhenotheo electiono too theogoverningo bodyo ofo AKFIo wereo toobeo heldo ando generalo assembly/electoralo collegeo waso too beo prepared,o theo respondento HKAo filedo objectionso too theo nominationso ofo theo petitioner-Associationotooparticipateoinotheosaidoelectionoprocess.o Theo saido objectionso wereo dismissedo twiceo overo ando ato bothoo stagesoofotheoelectionoprocesses.oTheosaidoordersopassedobyotheo Administratoro wereo noto challengedo byo theo respondento HKAo beforeoanyocompetentoForum.oTheosameothusoattainedofinality.o Havingochosenonototooagitateooropressoforoitsorights,oinocaseoofoanyo grievanceoflowingofromotheoordersopassedobyodifferentoauthoritieso ato variouso pointso ofo time,o thereo iso ao deemedo waivero ando abandonmentooforights.oRelianceoisoplacedoonotheojudgmentoofo Sargujao Transporto Serviceo Vs.o Stateo Transporto Appellateo Tribunal,oM/.P.oGwalioroandoothers,oreportedoaso1987o(1)oSoCoCo 5o too substantiateo theo argumento thato whereo thereo iso ano unconditionalowithdrawaloofotheopetition,otheosameowouldoamounto CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 35 too$!$ndon/entoo,oori #totoore$ it$teot#eos$idoissue.oT#eore%e'$nto e=tr$(too,ot#eos$idotiud /entoisoreprodu(edo#erein$,tero!e%o)I9o o :5.oIn this case we are called upon to consider the effect of the withdrawal of the writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India without the permission of the High Court to file a fresh petition. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') are not in terms applicable to the writ proceedings although the procedure prescribed therein as far as it can be made applicable is followed by the High Court in disposing of the writ petitions. Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code provides for the withdrawal of a suit and the consequences of such withdrawal. Prior to its amendment by Act 104 of 1976, Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code provided for two kinds of withdrawal of a suit, namely, (i) absolute withdrawal, and (ii) withdrawal with the permission of the Court to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The first category of withdrawal was governed by sub-rule (1) thereof as it stood then, which provided that at any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff might, as against all or any of the defendants 'withdraw' his suit or abandon a part of his claim. The second category was governed by sub-rule (2) thereof which provided that where the Court was satisfied (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there were sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim, it might, on such terms as it thought fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or abandon a part of a claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim. Sub-rule (3) of the former Rule 1 of order XXIII of the Code provided that where the CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 36 plaintiff withdrew from a suit or abandoned a part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (2) he would be liable to such costs as the Court might award and would be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. Since it was considered that the use of the word 'withdrawal' in relation to both the categories of withdrawals led to confusion, the rule was amended to avoid such confusion. The relevant part of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code now reads thus:-- "Rule 1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim--(1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim: *** *** ****

(3) Where the Court is satisfied--

(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or

(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim.

(4) Where the plaintiff--

(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or

(b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim." CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 37 xxx xxx xxx

¶7The Code as it now stands thus makes a distinction between 'abandonment' of a suit and 'withdrawal' from a suit with permission to file a fresh suit. It provides that where the plaintiff abandons a suit or withdraws from a suit without the permission, referred to in sub rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code, he shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim. The principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a Court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter again after abandoning the earlier suit or by withdrawing it without the permission of the Court to file fresh suit. Invito benificium non datur. The law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. Whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will loose it. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code which provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly or substantially in issue has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 38 decided by such Court. The rule of res judicata applies to a case where the suit or an issue has already been heard and finally decided by a Court. In the case of abandonment or withdrawal of a suit without the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit, there is no prior adjudication of a suit, or an issue is involved, yet the Code provides, as stated earlier, that a second suit will not lie in sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code when the first suit is withdrawn without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3) in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

¶8The question for our consideration is whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India also. It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the Court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel, to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao and Ors. v. The State of U.P. and Ors., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 575 in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 39 because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. The relevant observation of this Court in Daryao's case (supra) is to be found at page 593 and it is as follows: "If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other."

¶9The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daryao's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 40 to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We however leave this question open."

o Ao re,eren(eo iso $%soo /$deo too t#eo 0ud /ento o,o t#iso Courtoinot#eo/$tteroo,o'ousingo(oardo'ar)anaoandoanotheroVs.o M/so %o*+itso Mar,etingo ando others,o -A.o /..012 o o+o 2330,o decidedoono11.3!.231 &otooe/p#$siFeoonot#eop%e$ot#$tot#eo(%$i/o r$isedo!"o respondento No.1o !e,oreot#eo Ad/inistr$toro )ou%do !eo !$rredo!"o%i/it$tion.oRe%i$n(eoiso$%soop%$(edoonot#eotiud /entoo,o t#eoHon?!%eoSupre/eoCourtoinot#eo/$tteroo,o4ildli+eo5nstituteoo+o 5ndia,o6ehrardunoVs.oVija)o7u*aroGarg,oreportedoaso#1 "$o13o So %o %o &2!.o T#eo re%e'$nto e=tr$(to o,o t#eo s$ido 0ud /ento iso reprodu(edo#erein$,tero!e%o)I9o "6. It is also necessary to refer to the arbitration clause under the contract which clearly provides that if the contractor does not make any demand for CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 41 arbitration in respect of any claim in writing within 90 days of receiving the intimation from the appellants that the bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor will be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the appellants shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. The liability, therefore, of the appellants ceases if no claim of the contractor is received within 90 days of receipt by the contractor of an intimation that the bill is ready for payment. This clause operates to discharge the liability of the appellants on expiry of 90 days as set out therein and is not merely a clause providing a period of limitation. In the present case, the contractor has not made any claim within 90 days of even receipt of the amount under the final bill. The dispute has been raised for the first time by the contractor 10 months after the receipt of the amount under the final bill." o o Re,eren(eo )$so $%soo /$deo too t#eo 0ud /ento )it#o respe(totoo$!$ndon/ent&ode%$"o$ndo)$i'eroo,ot#eoHon?!%eoM$dr$so Hi #o Courto ino t#eo /$ttero o,o Mr.o 8a*asa*)o Athappano ando anothero Vs.o Theo Secretariato o+o theo %ourt,o 5nternationalo %ha*bero o+o %o**erce,o reportedo aso 233!o S%%o .nlineo Mad.o "! o)#i(#ore%iedoonot#eotiud /entoo,ot#eo-oodo%orporationoo+o 5ndiao#-%5$oVs.o9adavo:ngineeroando%ontractor,oreportedoaso CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 42 #1 !2$o 2o S%%o 0 .o T#eo re%e'$nto e=tr$(to o,o t#eo 8a*aswa*)o #supra$otiud /entoisoreprodu(edo#erein$,tero!e%o)I9ooo "32. One of the circumstances when an arbitration agreement may become inoperative is, when the dispute arising out of the underlying contract is resolved. The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Commercial Division, Australia, took such a view in Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation (PR China) vs. Sigma Metallurgical Co. Pty. Ltd., (Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Vol. XXII-1997 page 609). An agreement may be rendered inoperative even by acts of omission or commission, on the part of the parties. Waiver, abandonment, renunciation, election, acquiescence etc., are some of the acts of commission or omission, by which an agreement may be made inoperative by a party. In his "The Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation (2nd Edition) Mr.O.P.Malhotra, the learned Author says the following about waiver:-"Waiver of the right to arbitration, however, cannot be easily assumed. It requires an unequivocal demonstration of intent to waive. In determining whether a party has waived its right to arbitration, the Court examines the following factors -

(i) whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate;

(ii) whether the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked and the parties were well into CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 43 preparation of a lawsuit before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate;

(iii) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay;

(iv) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counter-claim without asking for a stay of the proceedings;

(v) whether important intervening steps (eg, taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration) had taken place; and

(vi) whether the delay affected, mislead, or prejudiced the opposing party (Jackson Trak Group, Inc v Mid States Port Auth 242 Kan 683, 751, P 2d 122, 129 (1988) cited in Malarky Enterprises (US) v Healthcare Technology Ltd

(UK), Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, vol. XXIII-1998 (US No.248) 945, 947)" xxx xxx xxx

¶34The issue of abandonment of the right to arbitration was considered by the Apex court in F.C.I. Vs. YADAV ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR {(1982) 2 SCC 499}, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:- "Abandonment of a right to seek resolution of dispute as provided in the arbitration agreement must be clearly manifested by the step taken by such party. Once such unequivocal intention is declared or abandonment of the right to claim the benefit of the agreement becomes CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 44 manifest from the conduct, such party would then not be entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement because there is thus a breach of the agreement by both the parties disentitling both to claim any benefit of the arbitration agreement. Section 34 provides that a party dragged to the Court as defendant by another party who is a party to the arbitration agreement must ask for stay of the proceedings before filing the written statement or before taking any other step in the proceedings. That party must simultaneously show its readiness and willingness to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration. The legislature by making it mandatory on the party seeking benefit of the arbitration agreement to apply for stay of the proceedings before filing the written statement or before taking any other steps in the proceedings unmistakably pointed out that filing of the written statement discloses such conduct on the part of the party as would unquestionably show that the party has abandoned its rights under the arbitration agreement and has disclosed an unequivocal intention to accept the forum of the Court for resolution of the dispute by waiving its right to get the dispute resolved by a forum contemplated by the arbitration agreement. When the party files written statement to the suit it discloses its defence, enters into a contest and invites the Court to adjudicate upon the dispute. Once the Court is invited to adjudicate upon the dispute there is no question of then enforcing an arbitration agreement by forcing the parties to resort to the forum of their choice as set out in the arbitration agreement. This flows from the well-settled principle that the Court would normally hold the parties to the bargain CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 45 {see Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. Invest Import {(1981) 1 SCR 899 : (1981) 1 SCC 80}.

¶35Again in GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. Vs. RENUSAGAR POWER CO. {(1987) 4 SCC 137}, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "Thus we see that it is the view of this Court that a step in the proceeding which would disentitle the defendant from invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration Act should be a step in aid of the progress of the suit or submission to the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit. The step must be such as to manifest the intention of the party unequivocally to abandon the right under the arbitration agreement and instead to opt to have the dispute resolved on merits in the suit. The step must be such as to indicate an election or affirmation in favour of the suit in the place of the arbitration. The election or affirmation may be by express choice or by necessary implication by acquiescence. The broad and general right of a person to seek redressal of his grievances in a Court of law is subject to the right of the parties to have the disputes settled by a forum of mutual choice. Neither right is insubstantial and neither right can be allowed to be defeated by any manner of technicality. The right to have the dispute adjudicated by a Civil Court cannot be allowed to be defeated by vague or amorphous miscalled agreements to refer to arbitration. On the other hand, if the agreement to refer to arbitration is established, the right to have the dispute settled by arbitration cannot be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds." CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 46 (Emphasisosupplied)o o oo LearnedoSeniorocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofotheo petitionerohasofurtheroarguedothatotheoclauseorelatingotootheoappealo underotheobye-laws/ConstitutionoofotheoSocietyo(AKFI)ocannotobeo construedo oro interpretedo toobeo anoarbitrationo clauseo withino theo meaningo ofo Arbitrationo ando Conciliationo Acto ofo 1996.o Ano agreemento amongsto theo partieso foro referenceo ofo ao disputeo too arbitrationoisoaosineoquaonon.ooHeoplacesorelianceoonoSectiono7oofo theoActoofo1996otoocontendothatothereohasotoobeoanoagreemento amongstotheopartiesotooreferoaodisputeotooarbitrationoandoinotheo absenceothereof,otheoAdministratorocouldonotohaveoreferredotheo issueo too theo Soleo Arbitrator.o Theo provisionso containedo ino theo MOAoandoConstitutionoofotheoAKFIoareoindependent,odistinctoando operateoinoseparateospheres.oProvisionsoofotheoActoofo1996ocannoto beoimportedoforoadjudicatingotheoappealobyomisinterpretingoando misapplyingotheonomenclatureoofo'ArbitraloCommission'oasoTheo Appellateo Authorityo aso theo processo ofo arbitration.o Relianceo iso placedo ono theo judgmento ofo Mahanadio Coalfieldso Ltd.o vso M/So IVRCLo Amro Jointo Ventureo 2022o SCCo Onlineo SCo 960.o Theo relevantoparagraphsoareoextractedoasounder:-o o "7.oTheosubmissionowhichohasobeenourgedoonobehalfoofotheo appellantsobyotheolearnedoAttorneyoGeneraloisothatoclauseo 15oofotheoContractoAgreementodatedo30oJanuaryo2012odoeso CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 47 not constitute an arbitration agreement. Hence, it has been urged that in the absence of an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Sections 2(b) and 7 of the 1996 Act, the very invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) was not valid. In order to appreciate the submission, it would be necessary to extract clause 15 of the Contract Agreement. The provision reads as follows:

"15. Settlement of Disputes/Arbitration:

15.1 It is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and disputes during the course of execution. However, if such disputes take place between the contractor and the department, effort shall be made first to settle the disputes at the company level. The contractor should make request in writing to the Engineer-in-Charge for settlement of such disputes/claims within 30 (thirty) days of arising of the case of dispute/claim failing which no disputes/claims of the contractor shall be entertained by the company.

15.2 If differences still persist, the settlement of the dispute with Govt. Agencies shall be dealt with as per the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India in this regard. In case of parties other than Govt. Agencies, the redressal of the disputes may be sought in the Court of Law."

¶8Section 2(b) of the 1996 Act defines an arbitration agreement to mean an agreement as referred to in Section

¶7In terms of Section 7, an arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 48 between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 stipulates that an arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 7, the arbitration agreement has to be in writing. Sub-section (4) of Section 7 then stipulates that:

"(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in-

(a) a document signed by the parties;

(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication including communication through electronic means which provide a record of the agreement; or

(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other."

¶9In Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719, a two-judge bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier decisions in K. K. Modi v. K. N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573, Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corpn. Ltd, (1999) 2 SCC 166 Bihar State Mineral Development Corpn v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd., (citation) and State of Orissa v. Damodar Das, (1996) 2 SCC 216, enumerated the principles governing what constitutes an arbitration agreement. Justice R V Raveendran, speaking on behalf of the bench, held that the words used in an arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of parties to refer disputes to arbitration. This court held: CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 49 "8 (i) The intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement shall have to be gathered from the terms of the agreement. If the terms of the agreement clearly indicate an intention on the part of the parties to the agreement to refer their disputes to a private tribunal for adjudication and a willingness to be bound by the decision of such tribunal on such disputes, it is arbitration agreement. While there is no specific form of an arbitration agreement, the words used should disclose a determination and obligation to go to arbitration and not merely contemplate the possibility of going for arbitration. Where there is merely a possibility of the parties agreeing to arbitration in future, as contrasted from an obligation to refer disputes to arbitration, there is no valid and binding arbitration agreement.

(ii) Even if the words "arbitration" and "Arbitral Tribunal (or arbitrator)" are not used with reference to the process of settlement or with reference to the private tribunal which has to adjudicate upon the disputes, in a clause relating to settlement of disputes, it does not detract from the clause being an arbitration agreement if it has the attributes or elements of an arbitration agreement. They are:

(a) The agreement should be in writing.

(b) The parties should have agreed to refer any disputes (present or future) between them to the decision of a private tribunal.

(c) The private tribunal should be empowered to adjudicate upon the disputes in an impartial manner, CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 50 giving due opportunity to the parties to put forth their case before it.

(d) The parties should have agreed that the decision of the private tribunal in respect of the disputes will be binding on them.

(iii) Where the clause provides that in the event of disputes arising between the parties, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration, it is an arbitration agreement. Where there is a specific and direct expression of intent to have the disputes settled by arbitration, it is not necessary to set out the attributes of an arbitration agreement to make it an arbitration agreement. But where the clause relating to settlement of disputes, contains words which specifically exclude any of the attributes of an arbitration agreement or contains anything that detracts from an arbitration agreement, it will not be arbitration agreement. For example, where an agreement requires or permits an authority to decide a claim or dispute without hearing, or requires the authority to act in the interests of only one of the parties, or provides that the decision of the authority will not be final and binding on the parties, or that if either party is not satisfied with the decision of the authority, he may file a civil suit seeking relief, it cannot be termed as an arbitration agreement.

(iv) But mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration. For example, use of words such as "parties can, if they so CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 51 desire, refer their disputes to arbitration" or "in the event of any dispute, the parties may also agree to refer the same to arbitration" or "if any disputes arise between the parties, they should consider settlement by arbitration" in a clause relating to settlement of disputes, indicate that the clause is not intended to be an arbitration agreement. Similarly, a clause which states that "if the parties so decide, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration" or "any disputes between parties, if they so agree, shall be referred to arbitration" is not an arbitration agreement. Such clauses merely indicate a desire or hope to have the disputes settled by arbitration, or a tentative arrangement to explore arbitration as a mode of settlement if and when a dispute arises. Such clauses require the parties to arrive at a further agreement to go to arbitration, as and when the disputes arise. Any agreement or clause in an agreement requiring or contemplating a further consent or consensus before a reference to arbitration, is not an arbitration agreement, but an agreement to enter into an arbitration agreement in future." (emphasis supplied)

¶10In the present case, clause 15 of the Contract Agreement is titled "Settlement of Disputes/Arbitration". However, the substantive part of the provision makes it abundantly clear that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties agreeing to refer either present or future disputes to arbitration.

¶11Clause 15.1 contains a reference to the steps to be taken for settlement of disputes between the parties. CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 52 Clause 15.2 stipulates that if differences still persist, the settlement of the disputes with government agencies shall be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Finance. In the case of parties other than government agencies, the redressal of disputes has to be sought in a court of law.

¶12A clause similar to clause 15 of the Contract Agreement in the present case was considered by a bench of this Court in IB Valley Transport, Vijay Laxmi (P) Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd consisting of J Chelameswar and A. K. Sikri, JJ. (2014) 10 SCC 630. In the said case, the clause was interpreted as an alternative remedy at the company level to be exhausted before taking recourse to other suitable legal remedies. It was observed: "10. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it becomes clear that Clause 12 of the general terms and conditions provides for a mechanism of dispute resolution before resorting to the legal remedies. This clause specifically states that it is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and disputes during the course of execution. If any dispute takes place between the contractor and the department, effort shall be made first to settle the disputes at the company level. Further, this clause states that the contractors should make request in writing to the Engineer Incharge for settlement of such dispute/claim within 30 days of arising of cause of dispute/claim." (emphasis supplied)

CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 53

¶13The above extract makes it abundantly clear that clause 15 of the Contract Agreement is a dispute resolution mechanism at the company level, rather than an arbitration agreement. Consequently, in case of a dispute, the respondent was supposed to write to the Engineer-in-charge for resolving the dispute. Clause 15 does not comport with the essential attributes of an arbitration agreement in terms of section 7 of the 1996 Act as well as the principles laid down under Jagdish Chander (supra). A plain reading of the above clause leaves no manner of doubt about its import. There is no written agreement to refer either present or future disputes to arbitration. Neither does the substantive part of the clause 8 refer to arbitration as the mode of settlement, nor does it provide for a reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration. It does not disclose any intention of either party to make the Engineer-in-Charge, or any other person for that matter, an arbitrator in respect of disputes that may arise between the parties. Further, the said clause does not make the decision of the Engineer-in-Charge, or any other arbitrator, final or binding on the parties. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the High Court to construe clause 15 of the Contract Agreement as an arbitration agreement. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶16The communication dated 7 April 2017 merely indicates a desire on behalf of CIL to have disputes related to work contracts settled by arbitration. It requires both the parties to arrive at a further agreement to CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 54 proceed to arbitration when the dispute arises. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Jagdish Chander (supra), following a line of precedent, clause 5 in the aforesaid communication cannot be construed as an arbitration agreement between the appellants and the respondent in terms of section 7 of the 1996 Act so as to compel the appellants to appoint an arbitrator.

¶17The order of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa dated 20 July 2018 proceeds on an understanding that the learned counsel for both the sides did not dispute the fact that clause 15 of the Contract Agreement and clause 5 of the policy decision 7 April 2017 taken by CIL provide for appointment of an arbitrator in case there is any dispute or difference between the parties. The order has, therefore, proceeded on an understanding of counsel, which in any event cannot be regarded as a binding statement of law on the existence of an arbitration agreement." (Emphasis supplied) o o Ito iso $%soo (ontendedo t#$to C%$useo 1C.Co o,o t#eo Me/or$ndu/o o,o Asso(i$tiono $ndo Constitutiono o,o AKFIo 3erst)#i%eo C%$useo 1C.A4o %$(+so essenti$%o in redientso $so re2uiredo underoSe(tionoEoo,ot#eoA(too,o-88Ao$ndot#$tot#eoAd/inistr$toro (ou%do noto #$'eo in'o%'edo t#eo petitionero $so $o t#irdo p$rt"o ino t#eo $!o'eos$ido$r!itr$tionopro(esso/ore9soo)#enot#eodisputeo)$s&o$to !est&o intero seo $/on sto t#eo AKFIo $ndo HKAo re $rdin o dis$,,i%i$tionoo,orespondentoNo.1o!"ot#eoAKFI.o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 55 oo Heo,urt#erore%iesoonot#eotiud /entoo,oVi*alo7ishoreo ShaoandoothersoVs.o<a)esho6ineshoShahoandoothers,oreportedoaso 231=o #!$o S%%o "!!&o too supporto #iso $r u/ento t#$to t#ereo iso $o ne(essit"o,oroe=isten(eoo,o$o'$%ido$r!itr$tiono$ ree/ent&o$sopero Se(tiono Eo o,o t#eo A(to o,o -88A&o !e,oreo re,eren(eo o,o $n"o su(#o dispute.oRe%e'$ntop$r$ot#ereo,oisoe=tr$(tedo$sounderI9o "53. We, accordingly, hold that the disputes relating to Trust, trustees and beneficiaries arising out of the Trust Deed and the Trust Act are not capable of being decided by the arbitrator despite existence of arbitration agreement to that effect between the parties. A fortiori – we hold that the application filed by the respondents under Section 11 of the Act is not maintainable on the ground that firstly, it is not based on an "arbitration agreement" within the meaning of Sections 2(b) and 2(h) read with Section 7 of the Act and secondly, assuming that there exists an arbitration agreement (clause 20 of the Trust Deed) yet the disputes specified therein are not capable of being referred to private arbitration for their adjudication on merits.

54 We thus add one more category of cases, i.e., category (vii), namely, cases arising out of Trust Deed and the Trusts Act, 1882, in the list of (vi) categories of cases specified by this Court in Para 36 at page 546-547 of the decision rendered in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. (2011) 5 SCC 532 which as held above cannot be decided by the arbitrator(s)." CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 56 (Emphasis Supplied)

o oo Re,eren(eo iso $%soo /$deo too t#eo 0ud /ento o,oo Vid)ao 6roliao ando otherso Vs.o 6urgao Tradingo %orporation,o reportedoaso2321o#2$oS%%o1&o$ndot#eotiud /entoinot#eo/$tteroo,o 5ndiano -ar*erso -ertili>erso %ooperativeo ;i*itedo Vs.o (hadrao Products,o reportedo aso 231!o #2$o S%%o &10o too #$//ero t#eo e=isten(eo o,o $o '$%ido $r!itr$tiono (%$useo $ndo pri'it"o too t#eo $r!itr$tiono$ ree/ent.ooT#eore%e'$ntoe=tr$(too,ot#eoVid)ao6roliao #supra4otiud /entoisoreprodu(edo#erein$,tero!e%o)I9ooo "2. A deeper consideration of the order of reference reveals that the issues required to be answered relate to two aspects that are distinct and yet interconnected, namely:

2.1 Meaning of non-arbitrability and when the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of being resolved through arbitration; and

2.2 The conundrum – "who decides" – whether the court at the reference stage or the arbitral tribunal in the arbitration proceedings would decide the question of non-arbitrability.

2.3 The second aspect also relates to the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the court at the referral stage when an objection of non-arbitrability is raised to an application under Section 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the 'Arbitration Act'). CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 57

¶18Arbitration is a private dispute resolution mechanism whereby two or more parties agree to resolve their current or future disputes by an arbitral tribunal, as an alternative to adjudication by the courts or a public forum established by law. Parties by mutual agreement forgo their right in law to have their disputes adjudicated in the courts/public forum. Arbitration agreement gives contractual authority to the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the disputes and bind the parties.

¶19The expression 'arbitration agreement' has been defined in clause (d) of sub-section (2) to mean an agreement as defined in Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. xxx xxx xxx

¶21The term 'agreement' is not defined in the Arbitration Act, albeit it is defined in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short, the 'Contract Act'), as contracts made by free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not thereby expressly declared to be void. Section 10 of the Contract Act also stipulates that aforesaid requirements shall not affect any law in force in India (and not expressly repealed) by which a contract is required to be made in writing, in presence of witnesses or any law relating to registration of documents. Thus, an arbitration agreement should satisfy the mandate of Section 10 of the Contract Act, in addition to satisfying other requirements stipulated in Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.

¶22Sections 12 to 18 of the Contract Act state when a person can be said to be of a sound mind for the purpose CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 58 of contracting and define the expressions 'consent', 'free consent', 'coercion', 'undue influence', 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation'. Sections 19 to 23 relate to voidability of agreements, the power to set aside contracts induced by undue influence, when both the parties are under mistake as to a matter of fact, effect of a mistake as to the law, effect of a mistake by one party as to a matter of fact and what considerations and objects are lawful and unlawful. Sections 24 to 30 relate to void contracts and Sections 26 and 27 therein state that agreements in restraint of marriage and agreements in restraint of trade, respectively are void, albeit Exception (1) to Section 27 saves agreements for not carrying out the business of which goodwill is sold. Section 28 of the Contract Act states that agreements in restraint of legal proceedings are void, but Exception (1) specifically saves contracts by which two or more persons agree that any dispute, or one which may arise between them, in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration.

¶23Arbitration agreement must satisfy the objective mandates of the law of contract to qualify as an agreement. Clauses (g) and (h) of Section 2 of the Contract Act state that an agreement not enforceable in law is void and an agreement enforceable in law is a contract. As a sequitur, it follows that an arbitration agreement that is not enforceable in law is void and not legally valid. xxx xxx xxx

¶54Implicit non-arbitrability is established when by mandatory law the parties are quintessentially barred CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 59 from contracting out and waiving the adjudication by the designated court or the specified public forum. There is no choice. The person who insists on the remedy must seek his remedy before the forum stated in the statute and before no other forum.

¶55Doctrine of election to select arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism by mutual agreement is available only if the law accepts existence of arbitration as an alternative remedy and freedom to choose is available. xxx xxx xxx o

¶236Having established the threshold standard for the Court to examine the extent of validity of the arbitration agreement, as a starting point, it is necessary to go back to Duro Felguera (2017) 9 SCC 729 which laid down:

"48…..From a reading of Section 11(6−A), the intention of the legislature is crystal clear i.e. the court should and need only look into one aspect—the existence of an arbitration agreement. What are the factors for deciding as to whether there is an arbitration agreement is the next question. The resolution to that is simple —it needs to be seen if the agreement contains a clause which provides for arbitration pertaining to the disputes which have arisen between the parties to the agreement." At first blush, the Court seems to have read the existence of the arbitration agreement by limiting the examination to an examination of its factual existence. However, that is not so, as the existence of arbitration agreement does not mean anything unless such agreement is CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 60 contractually valid. This view is confirmed by the Duro Felguera case (supra), wherein the reference to the contractual aspect of arbitration agreement is ingrained under the Section 7 analysis. A mere agreement is not legally binding, unless it satisfies the core contractual requirements, concerning consent, consideration, legal relationship, etc. In Mayavati Trading Case (2019) 8 SCC 714 and Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Construction and Engineering Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC 209, the aforesaid stand has been confirmed. Therefore, the scope of the Court to examine the prima facie validity of an arbitration agreement includes only the determination of the following:-

237.1 Whether the arbitration agreement was in writing? or

237.2 Whether the arbitration agreement was contained in exchange of letters, telecommunication, etc?

237.3. Whether the core contractual ingredients qua the arbitration agreement were fulfilled?

237.4 On rare occasions, whether the subject−matter of dispute is arbitrable?

¶238At the cost of repetition, we note that Section 8 of the Act mandates that a matter should not be referred to an arbitration by a court of law unless it finds that prima facie there is no valid arbitration agreement. The negative language used in the Section is required to be taken into consideration, while analyzing the Section. The Court should refer a matter if the validity of the arbitration agreement CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 61 cannotobeodeterminedoonoaoprimaofacieobasis,oasolaido downo above.o Therefore,o theo ruleo foro theo Courto iso 'whenoinodoubt,odoorefer."oo o o o o xxxo xxxo xxxo o o oo Itohasoalsoobeenoarguedothatoaomereosubmissionoofoano applicationo undero sectiono 16o ofo theo Acto ofo 1996o cannoto beo interpretedoasoacceptanceoofotheoarbitration.oScopeoofosectiono16o goesotootheomaintainabilityoand/oroobjectionsowithorespectotootheo subjectomatteroofodisputeoandoitocannotoquestionotheoappointmento ofotheoarbitrator.oo oo Whileo referringo too theo provisionso ofo theo Haryanao Registrationo ando Regulationso ofo Societieso Act,o 2012,o learnedo seniorocounselovehementlyoarguedothatoSectiono9ooofotheoActoofo 2012oreadowithotheorulesoframedothereunderospecificallyoprovideso differento formso ofo registrationo ofo theo Societies.o Noto onlyo theo applicationohasotoobeofiledounderodifferentosubstantiveoprovisions,o evenotheoformsoprescribedoforosubmissionoofosuchoapplicationoiso separate.oAodistinctoandoindependentocertificateooforegistrationoiso issuedobyotheocompetentoauthorityounderotheoActoofo2012oandotheo Rulesoframedothereunder.oSectiono9o(1)oofotheoActoofo2012odealso withoneworegistrationsowhileosectiono9(4)odealsowithoregistrationo ofotheoexistingosocieties.oAnoapplicationohadobeenosubmittedobyo respondentono.2oforoseekingoregistrationoounderoSectiono9o(1)oando theo applicationo (Formo II)o waso submittedo ino theo prescribedo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 62 statutoryo formo applicableo too Registrationo ofo newo societieso notwithstandingo thato existingo societieso seekingo re-registrationo undero Sectiono 9o (4)o ofo Acto ofo 2012o wereo requiredo too submito applicationoinoseparateoFormoVIoprescribedothereunder.oHeothuso contendsothatoapartofromotheoaboveosaidostatutoryoissuesonoticed,o theoGeneraloAssemblyoofotheoAKFIohadoalsoonoticedonumerouso otherodeficienciesoandodefectsoinotheofunctioningooforespondento No.2obeforeotheoorderoofodis-affiliationowasopassed.oItowasoalsoo noticedothatotheomembersoofotheonewlyoregisteredoSocietyowereo nototheosameoasothatoofotheoSocietyoofo1985oandohence,orespondento No.2ocouldonotobeolabeledoasoaosuccessoroentityoofotheoSocietyoofo 1985.o Theo saido Societyo ofo 1985o wouldo beo deemedo aso havingo ceasedotooexist.oTheorespondentoNo.2ocannotostepointootheoshoeso ofotheosaidoSocietyoandoclaimosameostatusoand/ororightsoinolaw.o Onceotheostatuteoprescribedoaoparticularoprocedureoforograntingo continuityo ando status,o havingo optedo noto too approacho theo authoritiesounderotheoapplicableoprovisions,oanoinferenceohasotoobeo drawnoagainstorespondentoNo.2.o o Certaino generalo argumentso witho respecto too theo powersoofotheoAdministratorotootakeodecisionsoandoconcealmento ofofactsobyorespondentoNo.2ohadoalsoobeenoraised.oHowever,onoto muchoemphasisowasolaidoonotheosaidoargumentsoduringotheocourseo ofohearing.oTheosameoareothusonotobeingoreferredoto.o o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 63 ARGUMENTSoOFoRESPONDENTS.oo o oo Learnedo senioro counselo appearingo ono behalfo ofo respondentoNo.2/HKAodoesonotodisputeotheoaboveofactualoaspectso referredotoobyotheolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioner.oHeohowevero contendso thato respondento No.2o haso noto beeno affordedo anyo opportunityo too leado hiso defenceo beforeo disaffiliation.o Theo representationo waso accordinglyo submittedo byo respondento No.2o withotheoAdministratoroforoadjudicationoofotheoissueowhereuponoao referenceo too arbitrationo waso madeo byo him.o Theo Administratoro havingo beeno conferredo allo theo powerso waso fullyo competento too referotheopartiesotooArbitration.o oo Itoisocontendedothatotheopetitionerohavingoappearedo beforeo theo Arbitrator,o allo sucho issueso thato areo beingo agitatedo beforeothisoCourt,ocanoalsoobeoexaminedobyotheoarbitratoroandoheo isofullyocompetentotooruleoonotheosame.oo oo Itoisofurtheroarguedobyotheolearnedoseniorocounseloforo theo respondentso thato theo petitionero haso noto beeno grantedo affiliationobyoIndianoOlympicoAssociationoandoasosuch,oheohasonoo rightotoofileotheopresentopetitionoandotheosameoisonotomaintainableo inotheopresentoform.oTheochallenge,oifoany,ocanoonlyobeoraisedobyo theoAKFIoandonotobyotheopetitionerotootheoreferenceoofotheodisputeo tooarbitration.o oo Anoargumentoisoalsooadvancedothatotheopetitionerohaso anoefficaciousoremedyoagainstotheoawardothatomayobeopassedoando CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 64 thatotheoapprehensionsoofotheopetitioneroareomisconceivedoandoareo unsustainable.oHeovehementlyoarguesothatorespondentoNo.2oisoino facto ao continuationo ofo theo formero associationo thato hado beeno registeredoinotheoyearo1985oandothatomereoerroneousosubmissiono ofotheoapplicationounderoSectiono9o(1)oofotheoActoofo2012owouldo noto takeo awayo theo erstwhileo statuso ofo respondento No.2o Association.oItoisopointedooutothatosinceotheonomenclatureo"State,"o "Union",ohadotoobeoremovedofromotheoregisteredonamesoasoperotheo Acto ofo 2012,o hence,o ano applicationo waso submittedo byo theo respondento No.2o foro seekingo registrationo ofo theo Societyo aftero comingointooforceoofotheoActoofo2012.oAllotheomembersoofotheo saidoSocietyohappenotoobeotheosameomembersowhoowereooriginallyo theomembersoofotheoSocietyoofo1985.oHence,othereoisoaocontinuity.oo oo Itoisofurtherosubmittedothatoreasoningogivenobyotheo Generalo Assemblyo ofo theo AKFI-respondento No.1o foro disaffiliatingo theo respondento No.2o iso untenableo ando thato allo necessaryocompliancesohadobeenomade.oo oo Inosoofaroasotheoreasonoasoregardsotheoelectionohavingo notobeenoheldosinceotheoyearo2011oisoconcerned,olearnedocounselo referso too theo avermentso containedo ino theo writteno statemento too contendothatointimationoforoholdingoelectionsohadobeenosentotootheo officeoofotheoDistrictoRegistraroFirmsoandoSocietiesoandoalsootoo theo respondento Federation.o Theyo refusedo too nominateo theo Observerso and/oro theiro officialso too conducto theo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 65 proceedings/elections.o Resultantly,o anyo consequenceso foro theoo lapseo ino holdingo electionso cannoto beo attributedo too respondento No.2.oo oo Aoreferenceoisoalsoomadeotootheoorderopassedobyotheo HighoCourtoofoDelhioinoCWPoNo.4601oofo2013ootoocontendothatoito wasospecificallyonoticedobyotheoDelhioHighoCourtoinoitsojudgmento datedo21.12.2017othatotheoaffairsoofotheoAKFIowereobeingorunoasoao familyofiefdomoandothatotheoAdministratorowhoowasosooappointedo wasoalsoodirectedotooprepareotheoPaneloofotheoelectoralocollegeoallo overoagain.oConsequently,otheoGeneraloAssemblyoceasedotooexisto andohence,oallopowersoofotheoGeneraloAssemblyowouldovestowitho theoPresident.oHence,oheohasorightlyoexercisedotheoaboveopowerso andojurisdictionoandohasocommittedonooillegalityoinoreferringotheo disputeotootheoarbitrator.oItoisoalsoocontendedothatotheopetitionero hasoalreadyosubmittedoanoapplicationounderoSectiono16oofotheoActo ofo1996owhichoisopendingobeforeotheoArbitratoroandoowingotootheo proceedingso havingo beeno stayedo byo thiso Court,o finalo decisiono thereuponocouldonotobeotaken.oTheoissuesoandoobejectionsoraisedo hereinocouldothusobeodecidedobyotheoarbitratorohimselfoandoheoiso competento too ruleo ono theo same.o o Theo groundso thato haveo beeno raisedobyotheopetitioneroinotheopresentowritopetitionoforoimpugningo theoorderopassedobyotheoAdministratorohaveoalsoobeenoraisedoino theoapplicationomovedobyotheopetitionerobeforeotheosoleoarbitratoro underoSectiono16oofotheoActoofo1996.oo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 66 oo <e$rnedoSenioro(ounse%o(ontendsot#$tot#eopetitionero )$so$to%i!ert"otoo/o'eo$no$ppropri$teo$pp%i($tionounderose(tiono -Coo,ot#eoA(too,o-88Ao,orosee+in ore/o'$%oo,ot#eoso%eo$r!itr$toro soo$ppointedoino($seo#eo#$so$n"oo!0e(tionotoot#eos$/e.oH$'in o notodoneosoo$ndo#$'in o(#osenotoo$ppe$ro!e,oreot#eo$r!itr$toroino t#eoon oin opro(eedin so#eo#$sosu!/ittedotoot#eotiurisdi(tionoo,o t#eo so%eo $r!itr$toro $ndo t#eo pro(eedin so ($nnoto t#ere$,tero !eo (#$%%en edo!"o)$"oo,o$o)ritopetition.ooo oo o Re%i$n(eoisop%$(edoonot#eotiud /entoo,ot#eoHon?!%eo Supre/eoCourtoinot#eo/$tteroo,o(haveno%onstructionothrougho Authorisedo signator),o reportedo aso #2322$o 1o S%%o "&.o T#eo re%e'$ntoe=tr$(tooisoreprodu(edo#erein!e%o)I9o "26. It must be noted that Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, necessarily mandates that the issue of jurisdiction must be dealt first by the tribunal, before the Court examines the same under Section 34. Respondent No. 1 is therefore not left remediless, and has statutorily been provided a chance of appeal. In Deep Industries case

(2020) 15 SCC 706, this Court observed as follows: (scc p.718, para 22) "22. One other feature of this case is of some importance. As stated herein above, on 09.05.2018, a Section 16 application had been dismissed by the learned Arbitrator in which substantially the same contention which found favour with the High Court was taken up. The drill of Section 16 of the Act is that where a Section 16 application is dismissed, no appeal is CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 67 providedoandotheochallengeotootheoSectiono16oapplicationo beingodismissedomustoawaitotheopassingoofoaofinaloawardo atowhichostageoitomayobeoraisedounderoSectiono34."oo (EmphasisoSupplied)o

o o ItoisoalsooarguedobyotheolearnedoSeniorocounselothato respondentoNo.2ohadosubmittedoanoapplicationofororeferenceoofo theo disputeo too theo arbitratoro ino termso ofo Clauseo 24.6o ofo theo unamendedoMemorandumoofoAssociationoandoConstitutionoofotheo AKFIo whicho iso undisputedlyo pario materiao too clauseo 24.4o providingoforotheoappellateoremedy.ooTheoadministratorohavingo beenoconferredowithototalocontroloandoallopowersoofotheoGeneralo Assemblyo waso fullyo competento too makeo ao referenceo ofo theo aforesaidodisputeotootheosoleoarbitrator.oFurther,onooprejudiceoiso likelyotoobeocausedotootheopetitioneroonoaccountoofotheoaboveosaido disputesobeingodecidedobyotheosoleoarbitratoroandoitoshallohaveotheo remediesoavailableounderotheooActoofo1996.oItoisofurtherocontendedo thatoclauseo24.4,o24.5oando25oofotheoMemorandumoofoAssociationo

(MOA)o ando Constitutiono ofo AKFIo haveo too beo harmoniouslyo construedoandothatotheoresolutionoofotheodisputesohasotoobeodoneo throughotheoprocessoofoarbitrationoasostipulatedoinoClauseo24.5o ando25.oAccordingly,otheopowerooforeferenceoofotheodisputeotootheo arbitratorohasobeenorightlyoinvokedobyotheoadministrator.o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 68 oo Itoisoalsoocontendedothatoaomereowithdrawaloofotheo petitionofiledobyotheopetitionerounderoSectiono11o(6)oofotheoActoofo 1996,o wouldo noto acto too theo detrimento ofo theo rightso ofo theo petitioner.o Theo arbitrationo aso wello aso itso processo havingo beeno statutorilyocontemplatedounderotheoMemorandumoofoAssociationo ando Constitutiono ofo AKFI,o theo respondento No.2o wouldo notobeo precludedo fromo approachingo theo AKFIo (theo administrator)o foro referingo theo disputeo too arbitrationo withino theo aegiso thereof.ooo Referenceohavingobeenomadeoinotermsoofoandoinoexerciseoofotheo powersoconferredounderotheoMOA,othereowouldobeonoowaiverooro acquiescenceoand/oroestoppeloagainstorespondentoNo.2-applicant.ooo ARGUMENTSoINoREBUTTALo o o Inorebuttal,olearnedoSeniorocounseloforotheopetitionero hasocontendedothatotheoissueopertainingotootheodis-affiliation/de-recognitionoofotheoMemberoUnitoisocoveredounderoClauseo29oofo theo MOAo ando noto undero theo generalo clauses.o Clauseo 24.5o iso applicableoonlyowithorespectotootheorequirementoofotheomembero unitsotoosubjectotheirodisputeotootheosaidomechanism.oTheosaido clauseoisonotoapplicableowhenotheoissueorelatesotooanyodecisionsooro ordersopassedobyotheoAKFIoandosuchoissuesoareotoobeodealtowitho undero clauseo 24.4.o i.e.o Generalo disciplinaryo regulations.o Theo power/functiono exercisedo beingo coveredo undero ao specifico ando separateo provision,o theo othero clauseso undero theo disciplinaryo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 69 proceedingsoofotheogeneraloheadoofoClauseo24ocannotobeoappliedo tootheoappellateoproceedingsoagainstoanoorderopassedoinoexerciseo ofotheopowersoconferredounderoClauseo29oofotheoMOA.oo o o HeofurtherocontendsothatotheorespondentoNo.2ohado challengedotheoearlieroorderopassedobyotheoAdministratorobeforeo theoDelhioHighoCourtoandosoughtorestorationoofoitsodisaffiliationo andotheowritopetitionowasoeventuallyowithdrawn.oTheoaboveosaido factowasokeptoconcealedobyothemoandocameotoolightoonlyowhenoao subsequentoresponseowasofiledobyothemo(P-13).o CONSIDERATIONoo oo Io haveo heardo theo learnedo counselo appearingo ono behalfo ofo theo respectiveo partieso ando haveo goneo througho theo documentsoappendedoalongowithotheopresentopetitionowithotheiro ableoassistance.o oo Forotheofacilityooforeference,ocertainoprovisionsoofo theoMOAoandoConstitutionoofotheoAKFI,oasoareobeingoreliedoupono byotheorespectiveoparties,oareoextractedoasounder:-o "24.o GeneraloDisciplinaryoRegulationso–oo o o o xxxo xxxo xxxo

24.4.oAppealo–oAnyodecisionotakenobyotheoAKFIoisosubjecto too appealo beforeo theo Arbitrationo Commissiono ofo AKFIo withino30odaysoafterotheoreceiptoofotheodecision.ooo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 70

24.5. All Member Units of AKFI will commit themselves to refer their unresolved disputes for settlement through the process of Arbitration with the Arbitration Commission which would be highest independent authority for the resolution of disputes.

¶25Settlement of Disputes/Conflicts in the Member Units – All State/U.T. Kabaddi Associations and member units affiliated to AKFI will include in their Constitution a provision that the Associations would have all unresolved disputes settled by the Arbitration Commission of AKFI and their Members will voluntarily surrender their right of seeking redress in any Court of Law. xxx xxx xxx

¶28Residual Powers – In the event of disagreement concerning the above Disciplinary Rules, the interpretation of these regulations will fall within the competence of the AKFI General Assembly, which will be the final authority as and when referred by the Executive Council.

29.Disaffiliation/De-Recognition of Member units-

29.1 The AKFI General either directly or through the AKFI Executive Council, based on its discretion, is entitled to consider disaffiliation / de-recognition of the Member Unit of AKFI on one or more of the under mentioned grounds, after ensuring that a Show Cause Notice has been served and an explanation has been obtained and considered from the organization recommended for disaffiliation/de-recognition.

CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 71

29.1.1. Non-observance of directives issued by the Amateur KabaddiFederation of India from time to time.

29.1.2. Not holding elections after the completion of the normal tenure for which the office bearers are elected.

29.1.3. Not submitting annual audited statement of accounts, annual report, list of current office-bearers and list of affiliated units within the stipulated time period." o T5#oA%6.+%*+.()o*)'oC()-.7.*+.()oA-+3o1886.o ?2.o6e+initions.o

(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) "arbitration" means any arbitration whether or not administered by permanent arbitral institution;

(b) "arbitration agreement" means an agreement referred to in section 7;

xxx xxx xxx

(d) "arbitral tribunal" means a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators; xxx xxx xxx o ".oArbitrationoagree*entoo

(1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.

(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 72

(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.

(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in -

(a) a document signed by the parties;

(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other 1means of telecommunication [including communication through electronic means] which provide a record of the agreement; or

(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract. xxx xxx xxx o 1=.o %o*petenceo o+o arbitralo tribunalo too ruleo ono itso jurisdictiono@o

(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose,—

(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and

CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 73

(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.

(2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence; however, a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely because that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator.

(3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings.

(4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of the cases referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), admit a later plea if it considers the delay justified.

(5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal takes a decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award.

(6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34." (Emphasis supplied) CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 74 o Foro determiningo theo o questionso thato ariseo foro considerationobyothisoCourtoitoisotoobeodeterminedowhetherotheo Administratoro couldo haveo referredo theo appealo too Arbitrator,o despiteosuchoaoremedyonotobeingoprescribedounderotheoMOAoando ConstitutionoofoAKFIoandowithoutonotobeingoconferredowithotheo powersoofotheoGeneraloBodyounderoclauseo28oofotheoMOA,omoreo soowhenosuchoappellateobodyoasostipulatedoounderoclauseo24.4ohado beenodulyoconstitutedoandoanoopportunityowasoextendedotootheo partyo too prefero ano appealo ando alsoo aso too whethero theo Administratoro couldo refero ano issueo too theo soleo arbitratoro notwithstandingothatothereowasonooarbitrationoagreementoasoundero Sectiono7oofotheoActoofo1996.o oo However,obeforeoadvertingotootheosaidoissues,oitoiso essentialotooadvertotooanoobjectionoraisedobyotheorespondentoNo.2o aso regardso theo maintainabilityo ofo theo presento petitiono ando theo locusoofotheopetitionerotoofileotheosame.oTheoobjectionoisoraisedoforo theoreasonothatotheochallengeobeforeotheoadministratorowasotootheo decisionoofotheoGeneraloAssemblyorelatingotooitsodis-affiliation.o OnceotheodecisionotooreferotheomatterotooArbitrationoisonotobeingo challengedo eitherobyo theo AKFIoorobyo theo HKA,o theo petitionero AKAHowouldohaveonoorightotoofeeloaggrievedoofosuchoaoreferenceo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 75 oo Itohasobeenoarguedobyotheocounseloforotheopetitionero thatoasoperotheoNationaloSportsoDevelopmentoCode,oothereocanobeo onlyooneosportsobodyothatocanobeoaffiliatedotootheoNationalobody.o Sinceothereoisonoofunctionalogeneraloassemblyooroaodulyoelectedo bodyoofoAKFIoandothatoanyodecisionotakenoonootheorepresentationo oforespondentoNo.2ohasoaobearingoonotheorightsoofotheopetitioner,o hence,oitohasotheolocusotooraiseoaochallengeotooanoact/orderopassedo byotheoAdministratorowhichoprejudicesoitsoprospectoofoitsoowno recognitiono consideringo thato ito haso alreadyo beeno grantedo affiliationobyotheoAKFIoandoonlyoitsorecognitionobyotheoIndiano OlympicoAssociationoremainsopending.oo o Heohasofurtherosubmittedothatoevenotheopetitioner-associationo haso alsoo beeno subjectedo too arbitrationo proceedingsoo whichoareonotomaintaibleoandotheorespondentohadonooauthorityotoo makeosuchoaoreference,oasosuch,oitohasoaolocusotooraiseoaochallengeo toofileotheoinstantopetition.oo o Theo petitionero alsoo claimso thato theo appellateo remedy(ies)oavailableotoorespondentoNo.2ohaveoalreadyocomeotooo anoendoafterotheojudgmentoofothisoCourtoinoCWPoNo.29848oofo 2017owherebyotheopartiesowereorelegatedotootheoremedyoofoappealo beforeootheoArbitraloCommissionoandorespondentoNo.2ohadobeeno grantedo ao periodo ofo 21o dayso too prefero ano appealo aftero theo constitutionoofotheoArbitrationoCommission.oDespiteointimationo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 76 thereofo to,o theo respondento no.2o failedo too availo theo remedyo ofo appeal.o Theo rightso ino favouro ofo theo petitionero thuso stando crystallized.oReopeningoofosuchorights,othatohaveobecomeofinalo andobindingobetweenotheoparties,owouldohaveoanoirreparableoando prejudicialoimpact.o oo Nooseriousoobjectionotooaboveosaidocontention(s)oando maintainabilityoofotheopetitionoatotheobehestoofotheopetitioneroiso assertedobyotheocounselofororespondentoNo.2oduringotheocourseoofo arguments.o oo Havingoheardotheolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoando takingointooconsiderationotheofactothatotheopartiesohaveobeenolongo litigatingobeforeothisoCourtoforotheirointeroseorightsoandoalsootheo facto thato theo petitionero haso alsoo beeno referredo byo theo Administratorotootheoarbitrationoproceedings,oitocannotobeosaido thatotheoreferenceoofotheoissueotooarbitrationoinotheoaboveomannero wouldohaveonoobearingoonotheorightsoofotheopeititoneroorothatoito hasonoorightotooraiseoaochallengeotooanyosuchoorder.oItobeingowello settledo thato thereo cano onlyo beo oneo sportso bodyo thato cano beo affiliatedowithotheoNationaloSportsoFederation,otheoclaimoofotheo petitionero thato theo ordero ofo disaffiliation/de-recognitiono ofo theo respondentoHKAohavingobecomeofinaloandobinding,otheopetitionero Associationo iso theo undisputedo sportso bodyo affiliatedo witho theo NationaloSportsoFederation.oEvenothoughotheoAKFIomayonotohaveo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 77 raisedoanyochallenge,ohowever,omerelyobecauseoofoanoabsenceoofo theochallenge,oonoaccountoofoabsenceoofoanoelectedobody,ocannoto beotakenoasoaoconsentoofotheoAKFIotootheoreferenceoofodisputeotoo theoArbitration.oActsodoneobyotheoAdministratorocannotobeosaidotoo beohavingo theobackingoofotheogeneralo bodyo ofotheo AKFI.o Theo entireo dispute,o whicho hado alreadyo becomeo final,o haso beeno reopenedonotwithstandingotheolitigationohistoryoandotheorightsothato haveosettledoinopartiesotherefrom.ooo o Takingoallotheoaboveosaidofactualoaspectsoandotheiro effecto ono theo respectiveo rightso ofo theo partieso coupledo witho noo seriousoobjectionobyotheorespondentsotootheomaintainabilityoofotheo presentopetition,oIoamoofotheoopinionothatotheopresentowritopetitiono wouldobeomaintainableoatotheobehestoofotheopetitioneroAKAH.oo oo Now,o whileo advertingo too theo questiono foro considerationobeforeothisoCourtoaboutotheolegality,ovalidityoando sustainabilityoofotheoreferenceoofotheodisputeobyotheoAdministratoro tootheosoleoarbitrator,otheocontentionoofotheopetitioneroisothatotheo Administratoro hado noo capacityo oro authorityo too nominateo anyo arbitratoroorotoo refero theodisputeobetweenotheo AKFIo ando othero membersotooArbitrationoconsideringothatothereowasoaoprescribedo statutoryo remedyo ofo appealo undero clauseo 24.4.o ofo MOAo ando furthero thato ino theo previouso roundo ofo litigationo initiatedo byo respondentoNo.2-HKAobeforeothisoCourt,otheyohadoadmittedoando CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 78 acknowledgedo abouto theo aboveo saido remedyo ando hado alsoo subjectedoitselfotootheoappellateojurisdiction.oo oo Evenothoughoaocontentionohadobeenoraisedoonobehalfo oforespondentoNo.2,owhoowasotheopetitioneroinotheoaboveosaidowrito petition,othatoitodoesonotohaveofaithoinotheoArbitraloCommissiono requiredo too beo constitutedo aso pero theo MOA,o however,o notwithstandingotheoaboveosaidoobjection,othisoCourtodirectedotheo AKFIotooconstituteotheoArbitraloCommissionoandotooinformoabouto theosameotootheorespondentoHKAoandoitowasograntedotheotimeo periodo aso prescribedo undero Memorandumo ofo Associationo ando Constitutionoforopreferringoanoappeal.oHence,otheoattemptomadeo byotheopetitionerotooseekoreferenceoofotheodisputeotooarbitrationooro too anyo othero independento bodyo (othero thano Appellateo bodyo –o ArbitraloCommission)owasonotoonlyonoticedobutowasoalsoodeclinedo byothisoCourtobyonecessaryoinference,oasoperotheoorderopassedobyo thisoCourt.oOnceotheorespondentono.2ohadobeenorelegatedotootheo remedyoofoapproachingoonlyotheoappellateoforum,oanyoreferenceo and/oroinitiationoofoproceedingsobyowayoofoanoarbitrationowouldo beocontraryotootheoprovisionsoofotheoMOAoandobeoinosupersessiono ofotheoappellateoremedyoprescribedounderotheoMOAoasowelloasotheo directiono issuedo byo thiso Courto ino itso ordero datedo 22.12.2017o passedoinoCWPoNo.29848oofo2017.o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 79 o o Perocontra,otheoemphasisoofotheocounseloappearingoono behalfooforespondentoNo.2ohasobeenoonlyoonotheoaspectothatoclauseo

24.5o stipulateso settlemento ofo disputeso througho theo processo ofo arbitrationo ando thato theo respondento No.2o hado submittedo ano applicationofororesolutionoofotheodisputeoasoperoclauseo24.6o(nowo

24.4.)oofotheoamendedoMOAoandothatotheoAKFIooptedotooreferotheo appealotootheosoleoarbitrator.oHence,otheodecisionowasotakenobyo theoAKFIoitselfotooreferotheodisputeotootheoappellateoremedyoofo arbitratoroandothatotheoproceedingsomustobeoconstruedoasothoseo underoclauseo24.4obyotheoprocessoofotheoarbitrationounderotheoActo ofo1996.oItohasofurtherobeenoarguedothatoonceotheoarbitratoroaso nominatedobyorespondentoNo.1oisoalreadyoseizedoofotheomatter,onoo prejudiceowouldobeocausedoinocaseoallotheseoissuesoareodecidedobyo theoarbitratoroappointedobyorespondentoNo.1-AKFI.oHeohasolaido emphasisoonotheoneedotooreconcileodifferentoclausesoofotheoMOAo andoConstitutionoofoAKFI.oo o o Itoisoapparentofromoaoperusaloofotheoclauseo24.4oofo MOAoandotheoConstitutionoofotheoAKFIothatotheosameoprovideso fororemedyoofoappealoagainstoanyoorderoofotheoAKFIobyowayoofoano appealo too theo 'Arbitrationo Commission.'o Clauseo 28o ofo theo aforesaidoMOAoandotheoConstitutionoofotheoAKFIodealsowithotheo residuaryopowersoandoconfersoallosuchoauthorityowithotheoGeneralo Assemblyo ofo theo AKFI.o Respondento No.2o hado itselfo concededo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 80 thato theo jurisdictiono too takeo ao decisiono witho respecto too theo affiliation/disaffiliationo iso withino theo domaino ofo theo Generalo AssemblyoandonotothatoofotheoPresident.oItoisoalsooconcededobyotheo counselo foro theo respondento no.o 2o thato theo powero too refero theo disputeotooarbitrationoisoalsoovestedowithotheoGeneraloAssembly.o Anoattemptohasobeenomadeotoojustifyotheoorderooforeferenceobyo arguingo thato theo Administratoro waso competento too exerciseo theo powerso ofo theo Generalo Assemblyo ino theo absenceo ofo ao dulyo constitutedo Generalo Assembly,o ando thato theo referenceo too theo Arbitrationoisohenceovalidlyomade.o o Clauseo29oofoMOAoofoAKFIorelatesotootheodecisiono pertainingo too theo affiliation/dis-affiliationo foro theo member(s)o Association(s).o Clauseo 24.5,o however,o dealso witho theo intero seo disputesoofotheomembersoAssociation(s),owhichosuchodisputesoofo membersoAssociation(s)ohaveobeenoprescribedotoobeoresolvedobyo wayo ofo ano arbitrationo process.o Clauseo 24.5o mandateso thato theo affiliatedomemberoAssociationsoshallosubjectothemselvesotootheo processoofoarbitrationofororesolutionoofotheirodisputesowhileoclauseo 25o mandateso sucho membero associationso too incorporateo similaro clauseo ino theiro respectiveo bye-laws/Articleso ofo Associationo aso well.oResultantly,otheoprocessoofoArbitrationoasostipulatedoundero Clauseo24.5oreadowithoclauseo25oofoMOAoandoConstitutionoofotheo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 81 respondento no.1o AKFIo iso ino referenceo too theo disputeso ofo theo membersoassociationoandonotoagainstotheodecisionoofotheoAKFI.o o o Clauseo 24.4o ofo theo MOA,o confineso itselfo too theo remedyoofoaopartyoaggrievedoagainstodecisionsotakenobyoAKFI.o Aboveoclauseoisonototheoremedialoclauseofororesolutionoofoanyo disputeointeroseoamongstotheomemberoAssociation.oTheoremedyo useso theo expressionso 'appealo beforeo Arbitrationo Commission'o whichoisorequiredotoobeoseparatelyoconstituted.oItoisoapparentothato underotheosameoheadoofoclauseo24,owhileoClauseo24.4oofotheoMOAo usesotheoexpressiono'arbitrationocommission',ohowever,oinoclauseo

24.5oofotheoMOAoandotheoConstitutionoofotheoAKFI,oitousesotheo expressionofororesolutionobyowayoofo"processoofoarbitration".oTheo authorityo waso thuso consciouso ofo botho theo expressiono ando theo scopeo ofo theiro operationo aso wello aso theo disputeo resolutiono mechanism,ohowever,oitoyetochoseotooprescribeodifferentowaysoforo resolutionoandodidonotouseotheoexpressiono"processoofoarbitration"o inorelationotooproceedingsounderoclauseo24.4othereof.oTheouseoofo differento expressionso cannoto beo saido too beo mereo omissiono oro negligenceoinodraftingoofotheoprovisions.o oo Aso pero theo settledo law,o whileo carryingo outoo interpretationoofoocontracts/statutes/oregulations,otheoliteraloruleoofo interpretationomandatesothatotheooplainoandocommonlyounderstoodo meaningohasotoobeoordinarilyoassignedotootheoexpressionsousedo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 82 thereinounlessosuchoplainoreadingoleadsotoovagueoorocontradictoryo meanings.oThisoprincipleohasobeenooftenoreferredotooinoEnglisho lawo ando haso beeno acceptedo aso wello aso reiteratedo ino numerouso judgmentsobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoincludingoino theojudgmentoofoJugaloKishoreoSarafoVersusoRawoCottonoCo.o Ltd.oreportedoasoAIRo1955oSCo376oasowelloasoinotheomatteroofo StateoofoHaryanaoversusoSureshoreportedoasoAIRo2007oSCo2245.o Hence,o theo ruleo haso beeno consistento ino itso applicationo ando adoption.oTheostrictogrammaticalomeaningohasobeenoconsideredoaso aosafeoguideoforointerpretationoofotheowordsoandoexpressionsousedo inotheostatuteoorocontracts.oAnyohyper-technicalointerpretationoiso ordinarilyo too beo avoidedo unlesso theo plaino readingo ando interpretationoleadsotooanoinherentoabsurdityoandofailsotooreconcileo theoconflictobetweenovariousoclauses.oItohasobeenorepeatedlyoheldo thato theo temptationo ofo substitutingo othero expressionso foro theo wordsoofotheostatuteobyowayoofoexplainingowhatoitoisothoughtotheo legislatureo iso endeavouringo too sayo haso too beo discouraged.o Theo courtocannotoprovideoforowhatotheolegislatureodoesonotointendoaso anyosuchoactoamountsotoolegislationoandonotointerpretation.oAtotheo sameotime,oitoisoalsoowellosettledoinolawothatoeachoandoeveryowordo shouldobeoassignedoaomeaningowhichoweavesointootheolegislativeo fabric.oItowasoheldobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheomatteroofo AswinioKumaroGhoseoVsoArabindaoBoseoreportedoasoAIRo1952o SCo369othatoitoisonotoaosoundoprincipleoofoconstructionotoobrusho CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 83 asideowordsoinoaostatuteoasobeingoinappropriateosurplusage,oifotheyo cano haveo appropriateo applicationo ino theo circumstanceso conceivablyowithinotheocontemplationoofotheostatute.oTheoaboveo ruleowasofurtherofollowedobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoitso judgmentoinotheomatteroofooRaooShivoBahaduroSinghoversusoStateo ofoUttaroPradeshoreportedoasoAIRo1953oSCo394othatotheocourtso shouldoavoidoaoconstructionowhichowouldorenderoaopartoofotheo statuteodevoidoofoanyomeaningooroapplication.ooItowasofurtheroheldo inotheomatteroofoJKoCottonoSpinningoandoWeavingoMillsoCo.oLtd.o VersusoStateoofoUttaroPradesh,oreportedoaso1965oSCCoOnlineo SCo2oasowelloasoinotheomatteroofoRamoPhaloKunduoVersusoKamalo Sharma,o reportedo aso 2004o SCCo Onlineo SCo 110o thato ino theo interpretationo ofo statutes,o theo courtso alwayso presumeo thato theo Legislatureo insertedo everyo parto thereofo foro ao purposeo ando theo legislativeointentionoisothatoeveryopartoofotheostatuteoshouldohaveo effect.o Legislatureo thuso doeso noto wasteo itso wordso oro too sayo anythingoinovain.oo oo Eveno thougho counselo foro respondento No.2o haso vehementlyo arguedo thato expressiono ofo 'processo ofo arbitration'o stipulatedo ino Clauseo 24.5o shouldo beo interchangeablyo reado intoo clauseo24.4oandotheoAppellateoAuthorityoowhichoisotheo'arbitrationo commission'oshouldobeointerpretedotoobeounderotheo'processoofo arbitration'oasostipulatedounderotheoActoofo1996oreadowithoclauseo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 84

24.5oofotheoMOA.oTheointerpretationoasosuggestedobyotheocounselo forotheorespondentoisoperoseounacceptableoasoitoisolikelyotoocauseo anoadditionoandosubstitutionoofotheosaidoclauseoandosameowouldo haveo too beo construedo aso "adjudicationo ofo theo appealo byo theo arbitrationo commissiono undero theo processo ofo arbitration."o Ito wouldo amounto too rewritingo theo clauseso ofo theo MOAo ando theo ConstitutionoofotheoAKFI,owhichotheolawsoofointerpretationowouldo notopermitoorojustify.oTheonomenclatureo"arbitrationocommission"o asowasousedoforotheoappellateoauthorityounderotheoMOAocannotobeo confusedo aso ano arbitrationo Tribunalo oro aso ano arbitrationo proceedingounderotheoActoofo1996.oo o o Ifo theo Constitutiono ofo AKFIo evero soo intendedo theo clauseso too beo reado ino theo mannero aso suggested,o thereo waso noo impedimento foro theo competento authorityo too provideo foro theo remedyoofoarbitrationoagainstoordersopassedobyotheoAKFIoasowello andotoofurtheroholdothatosuchoproceedingsowouldobeogovernedobyo theoprovisionsoofoActoofo1996.oItohavingoconsciouslyochosenonoto too provideo foro theo remedyo undero theo Acto ofo 1996o ando rathero providingoforoaostatutoryoremedyoofoappealobeforeoanoauthorityo designatedoaso"arbitrationocommission,"oitocannotobeoconfusedotoo beoanoarbitralotribunaloasostipulatedounderotheoActoofo1996.oo oo Eveno otherwise,o foro adjudicationo ofo ao disputeo byo wayo ofo arbitrationo undero theo Acto ofo 1996,o thereo haso too beo ano CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 85 arbitrationo agreemento amongsto theo parties.o Ano Arbitrationo agreementohasobeenodefinedounderoSectiono2o(b)oasoanoagreemento executedobetweenotheopartiesounderoSectiono7oofotheoAct.oo o o Invariablyofororeferenceoofoaodisputeotooarbitration,o ano arbitrationo agreemento iso ao pre-requisite.o Counselo foro theo respondentoNo.2ohasofailedotooreferotooanyoagreementoamongstotheo partiesotooreferotheodisputeotooarbitration.oRather,oheohasoreiteratedo hiso emphasiso ono clauseo 24.5o too submito thato theo processo ofo arbitrationoprescribedothereinooughtotoobeoaosufficientocomplianceo ofoSectiono7oofotheoActoofo1996oandowouldobyonecessaryoinferenceo beoanoarbitrationoagreementoamongstotheoparties.oTheosubmissiono oforespondentotoodrawoinferenceoinotheoaboveomannerocannotobeo acceptedosinceoitorunsocontraryotootheostatutoryointentoandoobject.o Arbitrationo oro adjudicationo byo wayo ofo arbitrationo iso ano acknowledgmentoofopartyoautonomyoandotheirojointoconsentotootheo adjudicationo ofo disputeso amongsto themo througho theo aboveo process,oexceptoinocasesowhereothereoisoaostatutoryoarbitration.oo Theostatutoryoarbitrationoinotheopresentocaseocanoatobestobeoreado quaotheodisputeoamongstotheomembersoasoperoclauseo24.5obutothereo iso noo sucho mandateo foro resolutiono ofo disputeso arisingo outo ofo decisionsotakenobyotheoAKFIoandotheoremedyoisoonlyobyowayoofo anoappeal.oTheoarbitrationoagreementocannotobeoperoseoreadointooino clauseo24.4.obyorelyingoonootheoexpressionousedooinoclauseo24.5.oo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 86 o o Itoisoalsoonotoaocaseowhereobothotheoprovisionsooro expressionso i.e.o 'appealo byo Arbitrationo commission'o ando 'decisionobyoprocessoofoarbitration'ousedoinoclauseo24.4oando24.5o ofo theo MOAo ando Constitutiono ofo AKFIo cannoto beo reconciledo withoutocontradictingoeachootheroorowithoutobeingorepugnantotoo theoletter,ointentoandoobjectoofotheostatuteoorothatoaomeaningfulo interpretationocanobeogivenoeffectotooonlyoifotheointerpretationoaso suggestedobyocounselofororespondentoNo.2oisoaccepted.oSeparateo procedureso ando grievanceo redressalo mechanismo haso beeno prescribedounderotheoMOAotootheodistinctocategoryoofodisputeso andosuchointentoneedsotoobeogivenoeffect.ooo oo Accordingly,otheoexpressiono"processoofoarbitration"o aso usedo ino clauseo 24.5o cannoto beo reado intoo clauseo 24.4.o Theo 'arbitrationocommission'oasoenvisagedoino24.4ohasotoobeoconstruedo aso ano "appellateo authority"o ando noto aso ao primaryo adjudicatoryo authorityo likeo theo arbitrator.o Theo expressiono "arbitrationo commission"ousedoinoclauseo24.4othusoshouldonotobeointerpretedo asoaosynonymousoofoarbitrationotribunaloasomentionedoinotheoActo ofo 1996.o Ao mereo similarityo ofo expressiono wouldo noto byo itselfo subjectotheopartiesotooaostatutoryoframework/regulatoryoprocedureo thatohasonotobeenoprescribed,ostipulatedooroagreedoupon.oo oo Further,oitoisoalsoowellosettledopositionoinolawothatotheo remedyoofoappealohasotoobeoinvokedoasoperotheomanneroprescribed.o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 87 Theo remedyo beingo bindingo ino natureo ando aso prescribedo ino theo MOAo ando constitutiono ofo theo AKFI,o powero ofo sucho appellateo authorityocannotobeovestedoinoanyootheropersonooroForumobyotheo Administratoromerelyobyomisinterpretationoofotheosimilarityoofotheoo nomenclatureoofo'ArbitrationoCommission'.oo oo Ito iso clearo fromo readingo ofo theo Memorandumo ofo Associationo thato clauseo 24.5o iso confinedo itselfo too theo disputeso amongsto membero Associationso ofo AKFI.o Theo AKFI,o doeso noto takeo anyo decisiono ono disputeso coveredo undero Clauseo 24.5.o pertainingotoootheomembers.oDisputeoresolutionothroughoprocesso ofoarbitrationoisotheobodyoofofirstoinstanceoforodecisionoandoisonoto anyo appellateo body.o Ino theo presento case,o theo Arbitrationo Commissionoactsoasoanoindependentoappellateoauthorityoagainsto theo decisionso takeno byo theo AKFI.o Hence,o theo processo ofo arbitrationo aso ino clauseo 24.5o iso noto theo sameo aso theo appellateo authroityo ofo arbitrationo commissiono undero clauseo 24.4o ofo theo MOAoandoConstitutionoofotheoAKFI.o oo Inotheosaidobackground,oitoisonowotoobeoexaminedoaso too whethero theo Administratoro couldo haveo referredo theo appealo againstotheodecisionotakenobyotheoGeneraloAssemblyoofotheoAKFIo too ano Arbitrationo ando thato tooo o too beo conductedo byo someoo arbitratoro othero thano theo appellateo authorityo prescribedo ando beo deemedotoobeovestedowithopowersoofotheoGeneraloAssembly.o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 88 oo Ito iso undisputedo thato theo Administratoro waso appointedobyotheoHighoCourtoofoDelhioandotheopowersovestedowitho theoAdministratorowereoqualifiedoasotoobeothatoofotheoPresident.o TheoHighoCourtoofoDelhiochoseonototooconferotheopowersoofotheo Generalo Assemblyo upono theo Administrator.o Undisputedly,o theo powero too admito and/oro terminateo membershipo ofo anybodyo haso beeno conferredo upono theo Generalo Assembly.o Theo ordero ofo theo Hon'bleo Delhio Higho Courto havingo qualifiedo theo powerso too beo exercisedobyotheoAdministratorotoobeoothatoofotheoPresidentoofotheo AKFI.oItowouldobeoimproperotooconstructothatomerelyobecauseotheo electoralo collegeo waso too beo reconstituted,o theo Administratoro wouldo beo competento too exerciseo theo powerso ofo theo Generalo Assemblyoasowell.oTheointerpretationoasosuggestedobyotheocounselo forotheorespondentowouldotravelobeyondotheoambitoofotheoordero passedo byo theo Divisiono Bencho ofo theo Delhio Higho Court.o Thiso courto cannoto reado intoo theo ordero whato haso noto beeno providedo therein.oTheoadministratorobeingocreatedounderotheoordersopassedo byotheoCourt,oheoexercisesotheopowersoandofunctionsothatohaveo beenovestedohimoandocannotoexpandotheoscopeoofohisopowers.oIto wasothusonotoopenoforotheoAdministratorotooexerciseoaopoweronoto vestedo ino him.o Additionally,o referenceo ofo theo disputeso too arbitration,o ino theo absenceo ofo anyo provisiono ino theo bye-laws/memorandumoofoassociationoandoConstitutionoofotheoAKFIo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 89 andothatotoooinoviolationoofotheoprescribedoremedyoofoappealoiso thusoaodeviationofromotheoprocedureoprescribedounderolaw.oo o Inosoofaroasotheoissueoofoalternativeoremedyobeingoao barotoowritojurisdictionoisoconcerned,oitoisoequallyowellosettledothato existenceo ofo ano alternativeo remedyo iso noto ao baro againsto constitutionalopowers.oHighoCourtocanostilloexerciseoitsopowerso whereothereoisoaomanifestoillegalityowhichowouldoviolateotheoentireo proceeding.oItoisonotonecessaryoforoHighoCourtotoowaitoforotheo entireoproceduralorouteotoobeofollowedobeforeoanoillegaloactionoiso setoaside.oItomay,oifocircumstancesowarrant,oexerciseoitsopowersotoo undooanoillegalooromaliciousoabuseoofopowerowhichoperpetuateso violationoofolaw.oooo DECISIONo TheodecisionoofotheoAdministratorotooreferotheodisputeotooao soleoarbitratoroisothusoheldotoobeobadoforotheofollowingoreasons:-o

(i)k Theo decisiono aso regardso affiliation/membershipo iso requiredotoobeotakenobyotheoGeneraloAssemblyoofotheo AKFI.oAgainstoaodecisionoofotheoAKFI,oaoremedyoofo appealohasobeenoprescribedounderoClauseo24.4oofotheo MOAo ando theo Constitutiono ofo theo AKFIo too theo ArbitrationoCommission.oooooooooooooooooooo oo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 90

(ii)k Thato theo appellateo authorityo undero theo nameo ando styleo ofo "Arbitrationo Commission"o alsoo actso aso arbitratoro foro resolutiono ofo disputeso betweeno memberso Associationso aso pero Clauseo 24.5o ofo Memorandumo ofo Association.o Theo adjudicationo ofo thoseodisputesobyowayoofoao'processoofoarbitration'o hasobeenospecificallyostipulatedotherein.oooo

(iii)k Thato theo disputeo ino theo presento caseo waso noto ao disputeo amongsto theo memberso ando waso rathero ao disputeoarisingooutoofoanoorderoofodis-affiliationoofo respondentoNo.2opassedobyotheoAKFIoinothisoregard.ooo

(iv)k Theo respondento No.2o had,o ino theo initialo roundo ofo litigation,o itselfo acknowledgedo thato Generalo Assemblyo iso theo competento bodyo foro takingo decisionso aso regardso affiliation/membershipo ofo ao Stateobody.ooTheomatterowasoaccordinglyoreferredoforo ao decisiono byo theo Generalo Assemblyo whicho hado againo dis-affiliatedo respondento No.2.o o Ino theo challengeoraisedotootheoaidoorderobyowayoofoaowrito petitionobyorespondentoNo.2,oitoacceptedothatothereoiso ao remedyo ofo appealo prescribedo undero theo Memorandumo ofo Association,o however,o theo onlyo impedimentowasothatotheoappellateoauthorityovizotheo Arbitrationo Commissiono hado noto beeno constituted.o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 91 TheoHighoCourtovideoitsoorderodatedo22.12.2017oino CWPoNo.29848oofo2017odirectedotheorespondentotoo constituteotheoappellateoauthorityoi.e.otheoArbitrationo Commissionoandotoointimateotheosameotoorespondento No.2oandolibertyowasograntedotoorespondentono.2otoo fileoanoappealowithinoaoperiodoofo21odaysothereaftero asooprescribedoinotheoprovisions.oo

(v)k Thato despiteo havingo beeno apprisedo ofo theo constitutiono ofo theo Arbitrationo Commission,o respondento No.2o preferredo noto too fileo ano appealo beforeotheoCommission.oo

(vi)k ThatorespondentoNo.2osoughtoreferenceoofodisputeotoo arbitrationounderoSectiono11oofotheoArbitrationoando ConciliationoAct,o1996obyothisoCourtoandotheosaido arbitrationopetitionoNo.432oofo2018owasowithdrawno byoitowithoutoseekingoanyoliberty.oooo

(vii)k ThatotheoobjectionsofiledobyorespondentoNo.2oagainsto acceptingo theo representativeso ofo theo petitionero associationo ino theo generalo bodyo ofo theo AKFIo waso dismissedotwiceooverobyotheoAdministratoroandonoo furtherochallengeowasoraisedobyorespondentoNo.2otoo anyo ofo theo o saido orderso whicho attainedo finality.o Rather,o writo petitiono filedo beforeo theo Delhio Higho Courtowasoalsoowithdrawnowithoutoanyoliberty.oooo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 92

(viii)k ThatotheoAdministratorowasoappointedobyoanoorderoofo theoDivisionoBenchoofotheoDelhioHighoCourtowhicho conferredoonlyotheopowersoofotheoPresidentoonotheo AdministratoroandonotothatoofotheoGeneraloAssembly.o Hence,otheopowerowasorestrictedoandoqualified.oo

(ix)k ThatotheoPresidentoofotheoAKFIodoesonotohaveotheo powero too subjecto theo AKFIo too anyo arbitrationo proceedings,oifoany,oandosuchopoweroatobestocouldo onlyo beo exercisedo byo theo Generalo Assembly.o Ano arbitratorocannotoexerciseoanyoauthorityomoreothano whato theo persono nominatingo theo arbitratoro iso conferredowith.ooTheoreferenceocannototravelobeyondo theo authorityo ofo theo employer.o Hence,o Arbitratoro couldonotolookointootheomattersoforowhichotheopowero oforeferenceowasoonlyowithotheoGeneraloAssemblyo especiallyowhenonooreferenceohadobeenomadeobyotheo Generaloassembly.o

(x)k Thato ao mereo useo ofo nomenclatureo "Arbitrationo Commission"ocannotobeoconstructedoorointerpretedo aso ano arbitrationo proceedingo o oro processo ofo arbitrationo aso contemplatedo undero theo Arbitrationo ando Conciliationo Act,o 1996.o TheoMemorandumo ofo Associationo ando Constitutiono ofo AKFIo iso specifico aboutocircumstancesorelatingotootheoapplicabilityoofo CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 93 theoprocessoofoarbitrationoasoperotheoArbitrationoando Conciliationo Act,o 1996o ando restrictedo theo sameo too proceedingsounderoclauseo24.5othereof.o

(xi)k Thato theo respondento No.2o failedo too assigno anyoo reasonoasotoowhyoitodidonotopreferotheoappealotootheo appellateoauthorityoasoprovidedoinotheoMemorandumo ofoAssociationoandoConstitutiooofotheoAKFI.oo

(xii)k Thato mereo filingo ofo objectionso undero Sectiono 16o cannotobeoconstruedoasosubmissionotootheoauthorityo ofotheoarbitrator.ooAsoaomatteroofofact,otheoobjectiono underoSectiono16oisobasedoonotheoprincipleoofotheo Kompetenz-kompetenzo ando iso noto ao waivero ando acquiescenceoofotheorightsoofotheoobjector.oFurther,oito isoalsoowellosettledopositionoinolawothatoanoerroroofo jurisdictionoisofundamentaloandogoesotootheorootoofoao dispute.o Ano exerciseo ofo theo jurisdictiono whicho iso invalidoinolawoorotravelsobeyondotheocontoursoofotheo powersooconferredooroisobasedouponomisconceivedo assumptionoofojurisdictionoisoanoillegalityothatocannoto beovalidated.oTheooproceedingsoandoaofinalodecisiono thatoariseoonoaccountoofoinvalidoproceedingsoareoalsoo vitiated.oo

(xiii)k Theo sameo administratoro whoo hado rejectedo theo objectionso filedobyo theo respondentono.o2o HKAo ono CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 94 twoo occasionso ando holdingo thato ito iso noo furthero affiliatedotootheoAKFIochoseotoomakeoaoreferenceooofo disputeo too ano arbitratoro withouto assigningo anyo reasons.o Soo mucho so,o heo nominatedo ano arbitratoro himselfo immediatelyo thereaftero withouto eveno consideringoasotoowhetherotheoAppellateoAuthorityo wasofunctionalooronotooroassigningoanyoreasonoasotoo howoandowhyotheoprescribedoremedyoofoappealowaso notoaoproperoremedyoandooughtotoobeosuperseded.oo

(xiv)k Theo initiationo ofo theo Arbitrationo proceedingo ino violationo ofo theo bindingo provisionso cannoto beo ao sufficientogroundotootakeoawayotheojurisdictionoofotheo writocourtoandoleaveoitotoowatchoillegaloproceedingso toomatureoandoattainofinality.oBeingoaocourtoofolaw,o justiceoandoequity,oaowritocourtocanoexerciseotheowrito jurisdictionounderoArticleo226oofotheoConstitutionoofo Indiaowhenotheoillegalityoisowritolargeoasoperotheolawo laido downo byo theo Hon'bleo Supremeo Courto ino theo matteroofoRadhaoKrishanoIndustriesoVersusoStateo ofo Himachalo Pradesh,o reportedo aso 2021o SCCo OnLineo SCo 334.o Theo relevanto extracto ofo theo judgmentoisoreproducedohereinobelow:-oo "27o -o Theo principleso ofo lawo whicho emergeo areo that:-o CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 95

(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;

(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;

(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or

(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;

(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;

(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 96 remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and

(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. Plea of an alternative remedy does not impose an absolute bar on the powers of the writ court. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the settled position of law as also of the statutory provisions as well as the fact that the order suffers from an inherent defect, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. A mere making of a reference, without being conferred with such power, cannot be accepted as a valid basis to contend that the power of judicial review of a Constitutional Court would be ousted and that any illegality or impropriety or an apparent overreach of the authority cannot be examined by a Constitutional Court. It would rather be a travesty of justice on the part of the Constitutional Court and would be abdication of its role if such illegality is not nipped. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 7rishnao ;alo%hawlaoandoothersovs.oStateoo+oAttaroPradesho andoAnotheroreportedoaso2321oS%%o.n;ineoS%o 1 1othatB-CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 97 "17. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfill personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous proceedings in Subratao8o)oSaharaov.oAnionoo+o5ndia,o#2310$o!o S%%oti"3: "191...One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his..." While the Court's ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years, hence, and there has still been no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 98 person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself.

¶18As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land. xxx xxx xxx

¶21It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilizing the institution of justice for unjust means. CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 99 Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.

¶22This Court's inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do 'complete justice' empowers us to give preference to equity and a justice-oriented approach over the strict rigours of procedural law (Stateoo+oPunjabov.o8a+iCoMasiho #4hitewasher$,o #2310$o !o S%%o !!1$. This Court has used this inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on manufactured evidence (Monicao7u*aro#6r.$oDoanr.ov.oStateoo+o Attaro Pradesh,o #233!$o !o S%%o "!1$. Other decisions have held that inherent powers of High Courts provided in section 482, CrPC, 1973 may be utilised to quash criminal proceedings instituted after great delay, or with vengeful or mala fide motives. (SirajuloDoors.ov.oStateoo+oAttaro Pradesh,o#231&$o oS%%o231; Stateoo+o'ar)anaov.o (hajano ;al,o A58o 1 2o Supre*eo %ourto =30$. Thus, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants." CWP-6863-2021o(O&M)o 100 oo TheoCourtsothusomustonotowaitoforotheoproceedingsotoo matureoonlyotoobeosetoasideoespeciallyowhenoanoillegalityocanobeo noticedoandocuredoatotheoveryooutset.oo oo Theo presento petitiono iso accordinglyo allowed.o Theo ordero datedo 15.02.2021o (Annexureo P-17)o passedo byo theo Administratoro referringo ao disputeo too arbitrationo aso wello aso theo ordero datedo 19.02.2021o (Annexureo P-18)o passedo byo theo Administratoronominatingotheosoleoarbitratoroareosetoasideoalongo withoalloconsequentialoproceedingsoarisingotherefrom.oo oo RespondentoNo.2omay,oifosooadvised,otakeorecourseo too theo remedyo ofo appealo aso stipulatedo ino Clauseo 24.4o ofo theo memorandumo ofo associationo aso pero law,o ifo permissible,o ando withoutoprejudiceotootheorightsoofoanyootheropartyotooraiseovalido objectionsotootheosame.oo o Augusto17,o2023o o oooooooooo(VINODoS.oBHARDWAJ)o rajoarorao o o oooooo o ooooooJUDGEo o o o Whetherospeaking/reasonedoo :oYes/Noo Whetheroreportableoo o :oYes/Noo