In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Respondent
Index
|
S
No
|
Description
of documents relied upon
|
|
Page
No
|
|
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
1.
|
List
of Dates and Events (separate)
|
Separate
|
|
|
2.
|
Application
for Interim Relief
|
Separate
|
|
|
3.
|
Memo
of Writ Petition
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Annexure
No 1
Copy of the order of this Hon’ble Court in WP No 3153 of 2012 (M/B) |
|
|
|
5.
|
Annexure
No 2
Copy of the relevant portions of rules for Arjuna and Dhyan Chand awards |
|
|
|
6.
|
Annexure
No 3
Copy of the list of 51 National Sports Federation |
|
|
|
7.
|
Annexure
No 3
Copy
of the representation dated 02/05/2013 sent to Ministry of Sports and Youth
Affairs
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Photo Identity- copy of Petitioner’s I’card
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Affidavit
|
|
|
Lucknow Amitabh
Thakur
Dated- /08/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 94155-34526
Dated- /08/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 94155-34526
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Respondent
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
S
No Date Event
1. 1930s BCCI
comes into being
2. 26/04/2012 Order of this Hon’ble Court in
WP No 3153 of 2013 (M/B)
WP No 3153 of 2013 (M/B)
3. 30/04/2012 News of recommendations made by BCCI
4. 02/05/2013 Representation sent by petitioners
5. 19/05/2013 Reminder sent by petitioners
While National Sports Awards can be given on the
recommendations only of recognized National Sports Federations and Board of
Control for Cricket in India (BCCI, for short) is not a recognized National
Sports Federation, yet as per the petitioners’ information coming from all
important national media, BCCI has recommended the names of Sri Virat Kohli for the Arjuna
award and Sri Sunil Gavaskar for the Dhyan Chand lifetime achievement honour to
the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, which is under
active consideration by the Ministry despite very specific rules in this
regards. The petitioners have so far sent two representations Dated 02/05/2013
and 19/05/2013 to the respondent where having presented all the relevant facts,
laws and details of the matter, the petitioners prayed to ensure strict compliance of
law and not to consider these recommendation of BCCI. So far no action seems to
have been taken on the petitioners’ representations. Hence this Writ petition
Lucknow Amitabh
Thakur
Dated- /08/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 94155-34526
Dated- /08/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 94155-34526
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Respondent
Application for Interim Relief
The petitioners most humbly submit as under-
For the facts, reasons and substances stated in this Application, duly
submitted by an Affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
High Court may very kindly be pleased to grant the following interim relief-
(a)
Issuing/ passing an order to the
Respondent not to consider the recommendations made to it of the names of
two cricket players, Sri Virat Kohli for Arjuna award and Sri Sunil Gavaskar
for the Dhyanchand lifetime achievement honour, by the Board of Control for Cricket in India till the disposal of this case because of its being against the laws
framed by the Government of India
This Hon’ble court may further be pleased to any other order that it
thinks necessary, in the interest of justice during the pendency of case.
Lucknow Amitabh
Thakur
Dated- /08/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 94155-34526
Dated- /08/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 94155-34526
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
1.
Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, son of Sri T
N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
2.
Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, wife of Sri
Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ------ Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, through the
Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, New Delhi ------ Respondent
Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
To,
The
Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid
Court:
The
humble petition of the above named petitioners most respectfully begs to submit
as under
1.
That by means of this petition being filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners are presenting a matter in which the
Respondent, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India seems
willing to flout its own rules regarding various National Sports awards by
taking into active consideration the recommendations of the names of two
cricket players, Sri Virat Kohli for the Arjuna award and Sri Sunil Gavaskar
for the Dhyan Chand lifetime achievement honour to the to the respondent by a
private sports body, Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI, for short), which
is not a National Sports Federation despite very specific rules in this regard
and despite the petitioners having brought it in their notice more than once. The
rule is that nominations for Arjun Award and Dhyan Chand Award awarded by the
Government of India shall be invited only from all recognized National Sports
Federations (NSFs for short) recognized by the Government of India, Indian
Olympic Association and State/UT Governments along with other specified
government bodies. But the Government seems to be acting contrary to this rule
and as per the petitioners’ information are taking into active consideration
the recommendations of BCCI, which is not an NSF. The petitioners sent a representation dated
02/05/2013 to the respondent where having presented all the relevant facts,
laws and details of the matter, they prayed to ensure strict compliance of law
and not to consider the recommendation of BCCI for these awards. They also sent
a reminder letter dated 19/05/2013. So far no action seems to have been taken
on the petitioners’ representations and having being left with no other alternative,
the two petitioners approach this Hon’ble Court with a pray to kindly ensure
the strict compliance of law and to direct the respondent not to take into
consideration the recommendations of the names of two cricket players, Sri
Virat Kohli for the Arjuna award and Sri Sunil Gavaskar for the Dhyan Chand
lifetime achievement honour or any such other recommendations made by BCCI in this regards or to decide the petitioners’
representation before taking any further step in this matter.
The
petitioners declare that they had filed a Writ Petition No 3153 of 2012 (M/B)
in this Hon’ble Court with the following prayer- “Issue a writ of Mandamus
commanding the Respondent No 1, Department of Sports, Government of India to
ask the Respondent No 2, Board of Cricket Control in India whether it wants to
get officially recognized as a National Sports Federation as envisaged by the
Department of Sports and thus to adhere to the various rules and regulations
associated with being a NSF and also caters to the various laws of the land
like following the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper
Use) Act, 1950 and to formally recognize the BCCI as a NSF and bring it under
the realm of public accountability and reasonable government controls as envisaged
by the Government, in case BCCI agrees to this offer of the Government of
India; and if the BCCI does not respond to this offer within a reasonable
period, say three months or responds in negative, then to publicly dissociate
itself with the Respondent No 2, Board of Cricket Control in India, tear even
its de facto status of a NSF and strictly ensure that whatever deviations are
being presently done by BCCI (including use of the word “India” at its end
showing direct patronage, claiming rule making power for cricket in India in
its Rules and Regulations and sending nominations for various government sports
awards like the Dronacharya Award, Arjun Award, Dhyan Chand Award and Rajiv
Gandhi Khel Ratna Award) as enumerated in this Writ Petition are immediately
stopped and also to get some other cricketing body willing to get associated as
a NSF to be appointed as a recognized NSF so as to perform all the legal,
official and authoritative works as the Government has assigned and envisaged
for the NSFs.”
This Hon’ble
Court, through its order dated 17/05/2012 said- “This writ petition (PIL) has
been filed by an I.P.S. Officer and his wife in personal capacity. The public cause which they have tried to
high light relates to facilities provided by the State to the Board of Control
for Cricket in India (for short 'the BCCI') without any return or exercise of
administrative control over the activities of Organization. According to
petitioner no.2 who argued in person, the BCCI is using facilities and enjoying
privileges provided by the State without being accountable for its activities
before the Government and the people. She contends that though it is our
national policy to promote the sports-sector but it appears that there is
absolutely no return to public exchequer for the money spent on providing
infrastructure and logistic support to the BCCI. Further according to
petitioners this country cannot afford the luxury of huge expenditure from tax
payers' money without any return. In
view of all the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file affidavit of the
Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports,
Government of India, (Respondent No.1) with complete details regarding the
total expenditure incurred on providing infrastructure and logistic support to
the BCCI in past five years and the return, if any, to the public exchequer in
respect thereof. The affidavit shall also indicate the amount spent on other
sports, indoor as well as outdoor, including Hockey etc. during participation
in international tournaments etc. in order to get a comparative view of the
money spent and return received in terms of money as well as achievements to
justify the expenditure.
Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.” The Writ Petition is still pending before this Hon’ble Court.
Prima facie, the above submissions of petitioners in person appear to carry force, and thus deserve consideration.” The Writ Petition is still pending before this Hon’ble Court.
The
petitioners declare that they have not filed any other Writ petition before the
Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to the
subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition
and it is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no caveat
notice has been received by the petitioners. A Copy of the order dated
17/05/2012 is being attached as Annexure
No 1.
2. That the
petitioner No 1 is an IPS officer in UP and is also deeply associated with
social activities around him. Petitioner No 2 is a social activist who works
primarily in the field of transparency and accountability in governance. The petitioners have sent two
representations in the matter and they want them to be acted upon and positively
decided in the shortest possible time. Hence the petitioners are not a total stranger
to the matter and have a definite locus in the case. As discussed
in great details in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and
Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114) that- “16. In Thammanna
versus K. Veera Reddy and other (1980) 4 S.C.C. 62 it was held that although
the meaning of the expression 'person aggrieved' may vary according to the
context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless normally, a
person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man
against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him
of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his
title to something. 17.In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Versus Roshan Kumar Haji
Bashir Ahmed and others (1976) 1.S.C.C. 671 the Court held that the expression
'aggrieved person' donotes an elastic, and to an extent, an elusive concept.
The Court observed: "...It cannot be confined within the bounds of a
rigid, exact, and comprehensive definition. At best, its features can be
described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning depends on
diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statue of which
contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature
and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the
prejudice or injury suffered by him” and as stated in the above Para, the
petitioners having sent the two representations and being related with such
causes, including having previously filed a Writ Petition No 3153 of 2012 (M/B)
are not a total stranger and as per the requisite elasticity of the concept of
“person affected”, they definitely come as being one in this case and are
certainly not total strangers. Hence, the petitioners’ locus.
3. That coming
to the matter in issue, the respondent, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs
gives recognition to various National Sports Federations (NSFs). It is the
policy of the Ministry to give recognition to only one NSF for each Sport/game
which shall act as the connecting point/linkage between the Ministry and the
concerned sports. It has fixed certain definite conditions for eligibility and
selection of these NSF and has also assigned major role to these NSFs. The
Department has itself proclaimed (as stated in the Department’s website as
well) that- “Sports promotion is primarily the responsibility of the various
National Sports Federations which are autonomous.” Similarly, the Ministry also
says that- “Over the years a number of National Sports Federations (NSFs) have
come up for development of specific games/sports disciplines. The Government of
India in achieving their objectives has actively supported these Federations.”
4. That the
Government of India presents many prestigious awards annually to different
sports persons and their coaches etc. These include Dronacharya Award, Arjun
Award, Dhyan Chand Award and Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award.
5.
That the Department of Sports, Government of India has framed
definite set of rules and regulations for the way these important awards shall
be given. A copy of the relevant pages of the Scheme/Rules for Dhyan Chand Award for Life
Time achievement in Sports and Games and Arjuna Awards for outstanding performance in
Sports and Games are being attached as Annexure
No 2.
6.
That as per Para 5.1
of the Rules framed for awarding the
Dhyan Chand Award for Life Time achievement-“The National Sports Federations
recognized by the Government of India, the Indian Olympic Association and the
State/UT Governments may nominate upto a maximum of three sportspersons in a
particular discipline/sport in a particular year. In addition, nominations will
also be invited by the Ministry from Sports Control/Promotion Boards of various
Governments organizations such as the All India Police Sports Control Board,
Army Sports Control Board, Railway Sports Promotion Board, Services Sports
Control Board, Indian Navy Sports control Board, Air Force Sports Control Board
etc.” As per Para 5.2-“In addition to the existing sponsoring
authorities/agencies, Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Awardees of the previous years
can also nominate one eligible sportsperson each for Dhyan Chand Award.
Further, Director General, Sports Authority of India can also nominate upto
three eligible sportspersons for this award.
7.
That
as per Para 6 of the Rules for Dhyan Chand awards, all nominations received
from the organizations mentioned in para 5.1 and 5.2 will be sent to the
Executive Director (TEAMS), Sports Authority of India and concerned National
Sports Federations by 15th June who will verify the achievements/performance of
all nominated coaches within a maximum period of one month of receipt
8.
That there are similar provisions for Arjuna Awards where these
rules are enumerated at Para 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 as regards those who can send the
nominations. The only thing different in case of the Arjuna Awards is that here
the nominations are not sent for scrutiny to the concerned NSF while for the
Dhyan Chand Award, as per Para 6 of the Rules, the nominations are sent to the
concerned NSFs for scrutiny.
9.
That
only after these well-defined selection process, these prestigious sports
awards are presented to the winners by the Government of India
10.
That thus these
Award nominations come only from all recognized National Sports Federations
recognized by the Government of India, Indian Olympic Association and State/UT
Governments and not from any other unrecognized sports body.
11.
That from the above Rules, it is very apparent that only the above
mentioned authorities/organizations/individuals etc, including the recognized
National Sports Federation, can make recommendations for the Arjuna and Dhyan
Chand awards. What it naturally implies is that such nominations made from any non-recognized
Sports body shall not be taken in consideration.
12.
That in the Writ Petition No 3153 of 2012 (M/B) (Amitabh Thakur
and another vs UOI and others), the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondent
No 1 in that Writ Petition, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affair presented a
list of 51 National Sports Federation granted recognition for the year 2011 by
the Ministry (as on 18/06/2012) at Annexure No III of the Counter affidavit.
This list of 51 NSFs does not contain the name of BCCI. A copy of the list of
51 NSFs as on 18/06/2012 presented by the Respondent before this Hon’ble Court
through the Counter Affidavit is being attached as Annexure No 3
13.
That these being the legal and factual positions, when recently the
petitioners came to know from almost all prominent National media sources of
the news that the BCCI has recommended the names of Sri Virat Kohli for the Arjuna
award and Sri Sunil Gavaskar for the Dhyanchand lifetime achievement honour to
the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports which was under active consideration
by the Ministry, the petitioners immediately sent a representation dated
02/05/2013 to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. A copy of the representation is being
attached as Annexure No 4.
14.
That having
presented the issue, the representation said- “We would request you to refer to
the Writ Petition No (PIL-Civil)
No 3153/2012 filed in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench against
the Ministry and BCCI by us. In its Counter Affidavit to our petition filed by
Sri A K Patro, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, the
Ministry has accepted in that they have been requesting BCCI to get recognized
as a National Sports Federation (NSF) but BCCI is not paying any attention to
it. In this affidavit filed by the
Ministry, it is said that there are presently 51 recognized NSFs.”
15.
That
the representation presented the Government Rules as regards these Sports
award, the petitioners prayed-“In light of the above facts, we pray before you
to ensure strict compliance of law and not to consider the recommendation of
BCCI for various awards as long as it does not agree to abide by the law of the
land and does not formally agree to become a NSF.”
16.
That the representation also said-“In case we get no response from
you in this matter, we would be forced to move to the competent Court for
ensuring the law of the land.”
17.
That when no response came in this matter, the petitioners sent a
reminder letter dated 19/05/2013 but so far no response has come from the
respondents and to the best of the petitioners’ information, the Ministry is
not only actively considering these recommendations but it is all set to accept
them, against the prescribed laws. The petitioners make it clear that they have
nothing personal against the two nominated players. The petitioners have the
highest regard for their skill, talent and achievements. Hence, the issue is
not who have been nominated. The real issue is as regards who has nominated
them. Again, this issue is important because the BCCI is not only a non-NSF, it
has also been consistently opposing every move and efforts to be brought under
the purview of being an NSF. BCCI is an extremely cash-rich organization which
is always in controversy because of various acts and incidences. There are many
serious and severe controversies associated with BCCI though they are not the
subject matter of this Writ Petition. It has also diligently and consistently
been opposing all efforts to be brought under the RTI Act. This is because BCCI
does not seem to like transparency and accountability in its activities. It
somehow seems to love darkness and opaqueness in its functioning. At the same
time, it also likes enjoying all kinds of privileges, benefits and gains
associated with an NSF, despite being an NSF. It is this dichotomy in the
situation and this inconsistency in the situations and mockery of law, being
made by BCCI in assistance with the respondent, that the petitioners, who are
deeply associated with various social causes, are deeply perturbed about. The
petitioners strongly believe that this belittling of law by BCCI needs to be
stopped immediately. Such a thing can happen only when the rule of law is
strongly implemented in this regards, including non-grant of any national
sports award on the recommendations of BCCI, as it seems to be underway
currently. Since the petitioners have made all possible efforts by sending
representations more than once but nothing has been done by the respondent so
far, hence to stop this anomalous situation and for the sake of establishing
the rule of law, this leaves the petitioners no other option than to approach
this Hon’ble Court to stop this violation of law and taking an appropriate
decision on the petitioners’ representations.
18.
That thus having no any officious and effective alternative remedy
in these circumstances, this writ petition is being filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India on the following amongst other grounds
19.
That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof have been enclosed
along with
GROUNDS
(1)
Because nominations for the Arjun Award and Dhyan
Chand Award awarded by the Government of India can be invited only from all
recognized National Sports Federations (NSFs) and not from any unrecognized
sports body
(2)
Because scrutiny of nominations of the Dhyan
Chand award needs compulsorily to be
done by the concerned NSF
(3)
Because BCCI has never being a recognized National Sports
Federation
(4)
Because BCCI is not in the list of 51 recognized NSFs submitted by
the respondent before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No 3153 of 2012
(5)
Because BCCI has sent its nominations for Arjuna and Dhyan Chand
awards in violation to the Government rules
(6)
Because as per the petitioners’ information, the
matter is under active consideration by the respondent
(7)
Because the petitioners sent two representations
dated 02/05/2013 and 19/05/2013 but their representations have not been
considered and acted upon by the respondent
PRAYER
Wherefore,
it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-
(a)
Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the
Respondent Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India not to act
in violation of its own rules and hence not to accept the two nominations from
the Board of Cricket Control of India for Arjun Award (Sri Virat Kohli) and Dhyan
Chand Award (Sri Sunil Gavaskar) to be awarded by the Government of India
(b)
Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the
Respondent Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India to decide
over the petitioners’ representation dated 02/05/2013 (Annexure No 4) on merit
and intimate them within a given time-period, say 15 days
Lucknow Amitabh
Thakur
Dated- /08/2013
Petitioner
in Person
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur and another Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Amitabh Thakur, aged
about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur, r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow, education- B Tech, religion- Hinduism, profession- Government service (IPS officer in UP Cadre), the deponent, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-
1. That
the deponent is petitioner No 1 in the above noted petition and as such he is
fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to
hereunder. He is filing this Affidavit on behalf of both the petitioners,
having the consent of petitioner No 2 to do so.
2. That
the contents of the paragraphs
of
the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,
based
on documents and records and believed to be true and
are based on legal advice.
3. That
all the Annexures No 1 to 4
attached with the Writ Petition are a true copy of their original ones
Place Lucknow (Amitabh
Thakur)
Date- /08/2013 Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named,
do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit
are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God
Signed and verified this the
day of 2013 at Lucknow
Deponent
Identification
I identify the deponent, on
the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.
Advocate
Solemnly affirmed me on at am/pm by the
deponent Amitabh Thakur, who has been identified by Sri clerk to Sri ,
Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
I have satisfied myself by
examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this Affidavit which
have been read over and explained to him by me
Oath
Commissioner
No comments:
Post a Comment