MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION versus RAHUL MEHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 01-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION
v.
RAHUL MEHRA AND ORS.
(Civil  Appeal No. 4771 of  2019 etc.)
MAY 01, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Sports :
Archery Association of India (AAI) – Constitution of –
Amendment by Court appointed Administrator – Propriety of – Writ
petition on the issue of governance and functioning of AAI – High
court by interim order appointed ‘Administrator’ for supervision of
the affairs of Archery Association – Appeal to Supreme Court
challenging the order appointing the Administrator – Supreme Court
by interim order dated 4.12.2017 directed the Association to amend
its Constitution and directed the Administrator to conduct elections
within a period of four weeks – Archery Association of India placed
on record the amended Constitution in terms of the order dated
4.12.2017 – The Administrator also filed compliance report together
with a new Constitution as amended by him – Held: The Administrator
had carried out the amendments beyond what was permitted and
approved by Supreme Court in terms of order dated 4.12.2017 –
The Administrator could have taken only such steps as were permitted
by Supreme Court – Constitution could have been amended only in
accordance with law i.e. by the elected body after interacting with
all the stakeholders and members – The Administrator had no power
to amend the Constitution, much less unilaterally, except for the
four amendments approved by Supreme Court – Therefore, the steps
taken by the Administrator beyond the scope of the authority
bestowed upon him, must be treated as non est in law – All the steps
taken by the Administrator, including the elections conducted by
him, on the basis of the Constitution amended by him, also has to be
treated as null and void and non est in law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1. The core issue to be answered in the present
proceedings is about the purport of the order passed by this Court
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 370
370
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
371
on 4th December, 2017. The background in which the said order
came to be passed after hearing the parties, leaves no manner of
doubt that it had modified the impugned order of the High Court
dated 10th August, 2017. Further, the contentious issues regarding
the proposed amendment in the Constitution stood answered to
that extent. In that, this Court passed a peremptory order not
only for approving the proposed amendments, as noted in the
order dated 4th December, 2017, but also directed the
Administrator to conduct elections in consonance thereto within
a period of four weeks, after incorporating the amendments within
one week from the date of the order. That was the limited mandate
given to the Administrator. Indeed, this Court had given liberty
to the Administrator to seek clarification or directions if and when
necessary. That liberty, however, by no stretch of imagination
could be mistaken as authorising the Administrator to carry out
amendments in the Constitution beyond the four amendments
referred to in the order dated 4th December, 2017, much less to
do so unilaterally without any prior notice to all the stakeholders
and due deliberations with them as mandated by the Constitution
of the Archery Association of India (AAI). In any case, any further
amendments to the Constitution could be incorporated only after
taking prior permission of this Court which was still in seisen of
the matter. The Administrator was also ill-advised not to seek
extension of time for completion of election process, which was
to be completed not later than five weeks from 4th December,
2017.  [Para 12] [382-E-H; 383-A-B]
2. The Administrator, however, merely filed a compliance
report on 24th September, 2018, in the Registry of this Court
without attempting even once to invite the attention of this Court
thereto. The Administrator has also filed a further report in terms
of the order dated 28th March, 2019. On perusal of the said
reports, it can be accepted that the steps taken by the
Administrator were under a mistaken belief - that he had the
authority to proceed in the manner that he did and including to
amend the Constitution beyond the four amendments referred
to in the order dated 4th December, 2017.  It is not a case of
defiance or disobedience of the Court’s order as such.  [Para 13]
[383-E-F]
MAHARASHTRA ARCHERY ASSOCIATION v. RAHUL
MEHRA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
3. The Administrator could have

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.