2009 (3) TMI 1089 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Enforcement of guidelines for financial assistance and recognition of National Sports Federations (NSFs).
2. Allegations of mismanagement and financial irregularities in the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF).
3. Legislative competence of the Union of India to regulate sports.
4. Maintainability of writ petition against a private body like IHF.
5. Validity and binding nature of the guidelines dated 14th August 2001.
6. Tenure restriction of office bearers in NSFs.
7. Issuance of writ of mandamus to enforce non-statutory guidelines.
8. Issuance of writ to compel the government to legislate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Enforcement of Guidelines for Financial Assistance and Recognition of NSFs:
The petitioner sought enforcement of guidelines framed by the respondent for financial assistance and recognition of NSFs, claiming they were binding. The petitioner alleged that IHF, recognized and financially assisted under these guidelines, failed to comply with them. The court noted the guidelines were issued to ensure financial discipline and proper utilization of funds provided by the government.

2. Allegations of Mismanagement and Financial Irregularities in IHF:
The petitioner, a member of the Jammu & Kashmir Hockey Association, raised grievances about mismanagement and financial irregularities in IHF, including unauthorized telephone, travel, and miscellaneous expenses. Despite complaints to the respondent, no action was taken. The court directed the respondent to investigate the complaints and take appropriate action as per the guidelines.

3. Legislative Competence of the Union of India to Regulate Sports:
The respondents argued that sports fell under the State List (Entry 33, List II), and the Union Government had no legislative competence to regulate it. The court, however, held that the Union Government could legislate on national and international sports under Entries 10 and 13 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. The court also noted that the guidelines were issued under executive powers and were binding.

4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against a Private Body like IHF:
The respondents contended that IHF, being a private body, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court rejected this argument, stating that IHF performed public functions and duties, and thus, was subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the nature of the duty, not the form of the body, was relevant for determining amenability to writ jurisdiction.

5. Validity and Binding Nature of the Guidelines Dated 14th August 2001:
The respondents claimed the guidelines were merely draft guidelines and not binding. The court found no evidence to support this claim and held that the guidelines were valid and binding. The court noted that the guidelines were issued with the approval of the Ministry of Finance and were applicable for recognition and financial assistance to NSFs.

6. Tenure Restriction of Office Bearers in NSFs:
The guidelines included a tenure restriction for office bearers, limiting them to two consecutive terms of four years each. The respondents argued that this restriction violated their constitutional rights under Article 19. The court rejected this argument, citing precedents where similar tenure restrictions were upheld as reasonable and necessary to prevent vested interests and ensure democratic functioning of associations.

7. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus to Enforce Non-Statutory Guidelines:
The respondents argued that non-statutory guidelines could not be enforced through a writ of mandamus. The court held that while non-statutory guidelines might not create enforceable rights, the government was bound to act fairly and consistently with its guidelines. The court directed the respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaints and take appropriate action as per the guidelines.

8. Issuance of Writ to Compel the Government to Legislate:
The respondents contended that no writ could be issued to compel the government to legislate. The court agreed, stating that it could not direct the government to enact legislation. However, the court noted that the guidelines were issued under executive powers and were binding for the purposes of recognition and financial assistance to NSFs.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondent to investigate the petitioner's complaints regarding mismanagement and financial irregularities in IHF and take appropriate action as per the guidelines. The court upheld the validity and binding nature of the guidelines dated 14th August 2001, including the tenure restriction for office bearers. The court also affirmed that IHF, performing public functions, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.