Churchill Brothers Sports Club Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JANUARY 05, 2016 "pp" (corrected and released on 15th January, 2016)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 5th January, 2016 + W.P.(C) No.9775/2015 & CM No.23488/2015 (for stay) CHURCHILL BROTHERS SPORTS CLUB PVT. LTD. .............Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv. with Dr. Harsh Pathak, Mrs. Shweta Pathak, Ms. Gurveen Dhaliwal, Mr. Siddhartha Shukla and Mr. Ashwin Kumar, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Dr. L.C. Singhi, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Mr. Premtosh Mishra and Ms. Yojna Goyal, Advs. for R-2. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW. 1. The petition impugns the communication dated 13th July, 2015 of the respondent no.2 All India Football Federation (AIFF) informing the petitioner that the petitioner is not eligible to apply for the grant of licence to participate in the I-League Season 2015-16. 2. Notice of the petition was issued on the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner that though under the Indian Club Licensing Regulations framed by the respondent no.2 AIFF the decision, to whom to license for participation in the I-League is to be given, is to be taken by the Club Licensing Committee and against the order whereof remedy of appeal is available to the Club Licensing Appeal Body but the application of the petitioner for licence for the I-League Season 2015-16 had been rejected not by the Club Licensing Committee but by the Manager, Club Licensing. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents and rejoinders whereto have been filed by the petitioner. The counsels have been heard. 4. The relevant part of the impugned communication dated 13th July, 2015 is as under:- "Therefore, in terms of the said direction of the Hon'ble High Court dated 10.04.2015 and subsequent to submission of license application & representation dated 02.07.2015, we would like to inform you that the licensing procedure is only applicable to the clubs already participating in the I-League and the Champions of the 2nd Division league. Further, only the following clubs can be granted National and AFC Licence under the Indian Club Licensing procedure of the I-League Season 2015-16: i. Existing clubs participating in the I-League Season 2014- 15 which have not been relegated i.e. the clubs which were playing in the I-League Season 2014-15 and which have not been relegated to the second division at the end of the I-League are eligible; ii. Champions of the 2nd division league i.e. Clubs who participate in the second tier national league competition of India i.e. 2nd Division League and win the competition are eligible to participate in the licensing process of the subsequent season of I-League. In the present season, Aizawl FC participated in the 2nd Division League 2014- 15 and won the same, making them eligible to apply for a license to play in I-League Season 2015-16. You were given an opportunity to participate in the 2nd Division League 2014-15 at the start of the season, which you also applied for, but later denied participation thus making you ineligible to qualify for I-League 2015-16 under this criterion; Please also note that, clubs entering through the bidding route (lateral entry) are given a one-time exemption for the 1st year, which was also given to your club, Churchill Brothers for the season 2013-14. Thereafter, as per the provisions of the present regulations, such clubs are required to comply with the provisions of the club licensing regulations in the subsequent years. Therefore, as Churchill Brothers does not fulfil any of the abovementioned requirements, please be informed that you are not eligible to apply for the grant of license to participate in the I-League Season 2015-16." (emphasis added) 5. The senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the criteria adopted by the respondent no.2 AIFF for holding the petitioner not eligible to apply for grant of license is not provided in the Regulations aforesaid. 6. The counsel for the respondent no.2 AIFF has in this regard drawn attention