9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also to restrain the said respondents from permitting the two included players - arrayed as the 6th and 7th respondents in the writ petition - to participate in the Asian Games. The said interim reliefs were refused by the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 10.07.2018, on the finding that the last date for sending the names of players for the Asian Games was 30.06.2018, and the writ petition itself was filed only on 02.07.2018. The belated approach before this court was seen as reason enough to deny the interim relief. The writ petitioners therefore filed W.A. Nos. 1410 and 1411 of 2018 before this Court, aggrieved by the denial of interim reliefs. When the appeals came for admission, noticing the urgency projected on behalf of the appellants, we deemed it appropriate to call for the writ petition itself before this court so as to finally decide the main issue agitated therein. It is thus that the present writ appeals and writ petition are before us. 3. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants, the learned senior counsel Sri. Bechu Kurien Thomas would submit that the selection for the national team is based on the performance of the players in two selection tour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. Per contra, Sri. Nalin Kohli learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Badminton Association of India, would submit, based on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent, that the selection of players for the Indian Women's team was done pursuant to a transparent procedure that was followed for informing all concerned of the criteria for selection. It is stated that, the criteria fixed were in sharp contrast to the practice that was followed in earlier years when irregularities were detected and brought to the notice of the Association. The present selection criteria is stated to be an objective one, based on the performance of players in specified selection tournaments and the points scored by them as per the Indian ranking system 2009. It is submitted that the petitioners were awarded points based on their performance in the doubles event at the selection tournaments, and respondents 6 and 7 based on their performance in the singles event at the said tournaments. In the absence of any challenge by the petitioners, to the selection criteria published by the Association, it is submitted that the petitioners cannot question the points awarded to players, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... last date notified for sending the names of players to the host committee in charge of holding the Asian Games in Jakarta. Reference is made to Ext. R2(h) Badminton Sport Technical Handbook, published by the Indonesia Asian Games Organizing Committee, to indicate that the deadline for submitting entries by name is June 30, 2018. He vehemently denies the suggestion that there could be changes effected in exceptional circumstances. It is pointed out that the handbook referred above indicates that a withdrawal of names after the deadline visits the defaulting team with disciplinary action. Instances have been cited where changes were not permitted at previous international events and it is submitted that, at any rate, there are no exceptional circumstances, such as injury or medical exigencies, in the instant case justifying an attempt at recasting the list already finalised and dispatched to Jakarta. 8. An additional point raised by Sri. Kohli, as an alternate contention, is with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this court. It is submitted that the cause of action in the instant case arose in Bangalore, where the selection committee met to select the team. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining six players who would constitute the Indian Women's team for the Asian Games at Jakarta. The selection committee was to meet at Hyderabad on 24.05.2018 for identifying the said six players. 11. At the selection tournaments, the writ petitioners emerged the winners in the doubles event at Bangalore and semi-finalists in the doubles event at Hyderabad. Respondents 6 and 7, who are both singles players, also fared reasonably well in the singles event, with the 6th respondent reaching the quarter-final at Bangalore and the semi-final at Hyderabad. For the six slots remaining to be filled for the Indian team, two singles players viz. Sai Uttejita Rao and Ashmita Chaliha and one doubles pai viz. Rutaparna Panda and Aarthi Sunil were identified for four slots. That the said persons had higher points warranting their selection to the available slots is not disputed by the writ petitioners. As for the remaining two slots, the option for the selection committee was, either to pick two singles players or a doubles pair. Had the committee opted for the doubles pair, the petitioners would have been in the team. The committee, however, opted for the two singles players. 12. The selec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that he provides cannot be expected from any other member of the selection committee. He is also the one who will closely associate with the players, and assess the competition that can be expected at the international events. His opinion, as to whether the need of the hour is for additional singles players or doubles players is, therefore, crucial and cannot be ignored. In the absence of any material to doubt the integrity of the 5th respondent, we are of the view that it would be unfair, if not unreasonable, to assume that the Chief National Coach of our country would sacrifice national interest, in order to further his personal interest or that of his daughter. The fact that the 6th respondent also has the necessary credentials for inclusion in the national team, through the points earned by her at the selection tournaments, leads us to uphold the decision of the selection committee as one that is not vitiated on account of any bias, or even a real likelihood of it. 15. The question then arises as to whether, in the absence of bias, the decision of the selection committee can be said to be vitiated on any other ground. In this connection it must be noted that the selection p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um Ingots & Alloys Limited v. Union of India and Another - [(2004) 6 SCC 254] and the Full Bench decisions of this court in Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy Commandant - [1999 (3) KLT 629] and Dental Council of India (DCI) v. Dr. V. Viswanath and Ors. - [2018 (3) KHC 143 (FB)], we are inclined to agree with Sri. Kohli that, no part of the cause of action, in the instant case, arose within the territorial limits of this court. It is important to note that there is a distinction between a "right of action" and a "cause of action". As noted by this court in Anand Anoop v. Union of India - [2014 (3) KLT 171], based on the distinction drawn by the learned author Durga Das Basu in his Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th Edn, 2010), the terms "right of action" and "cause of action" are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. A right of action arises as soon as there is an invasion of a right, and it is a right to enforce a cause of action. A person residing anywhere in the country, being aggrieved by an order of the Government, Central or State, or authority or person, may have a right of action in law, but the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 can be invoked only when the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
