THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2273 of 2010 Dated 29th October, 2010 Between: The Andhra Cricket Association, Vijayawada …Petitioner And C. Nagendranath …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Vidyasagar Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 18: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: Sri N. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client seeks to give up the case against respondent Nos.10 and 15. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed qua the said respondents. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 17.03.2010 in I.A.No.81 of 2010 in S.R.O.P.No.61 of 2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Tribunal, Kurnool. The petitioner is respondent No.18 in the abovementioned O.P. filed by respondent No.1 herein for restraining respondent Nos.2 to 18 herein from functioning as Members of Kurnool Cricket Association, an affiliated Member of the petitioner Association. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.81 of 2010 under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short ‘2001 Act’) and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Act’) for reference of the disputes to an Arbitration Tribunal. This application was dismissed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, by the order under revision, which reads as under: “Heard. Since the bye-laws provide for both the remedies of arbitration as well as suit, this petition is dismissed.” Sri N. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted and in my view justifiably, that the order of the Court below is a non-speaking one, which cannot be sustained in law. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, the bye laws do not provide for a remedy of suit. Indeed Rule 58 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association which are obviously styled as bye laws by the learned Judge, provides for arbitration only. Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner in S.R.O.P. before the Court below, however, placed reliance on Section 23 of 2001 Act and submitted that his client had an option to choose the Forum of either Arbitration or the District Court and that this statutory provision contained in a special enactment would prevail over the rules framed by the petitioner. In my opinion, the learned Judge has failed to apply his mind to the relevant statutory provisions governing the dispute, namely, Section 8 of 1996 Act and Section 23 of 2001 Act and the Rules framed under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the petitioner. Unless the interplay of these provisions is analysed and applied to the facts of the case, the application of the petitioner cannot be thrown out. As the order under revision is cryptic and laconic, the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 17.03.2010 in I.A.No.81 of 2010 in S.R.O.P.No.61 of 2009 on the file of the Court of I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Tribunal, Kurnool, is set aside and the learned Judge is directed to dispose of the I.A. filed by the petitioner afresh, in the light of the above observations, by passing a speaking order, after hearing all the parties concerned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order dated 09.06.2010 is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.3047 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th October, 2010 GHN