IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30063 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 50, S/O.LATE P.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, PADIKKAT HOUSE, CHERUVARANAM, VARANAM P.O., CHERTHALLA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.BIJILY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (RETURNING OFFICER, KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL ELECTION, 2008) 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA,(RETURNING OFFICER, DISTRICT SPORTS COUNCIL ELECTION,2008) 4. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT SPORTS COUNCIL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER,SC,SPORTS COUN FOR R2 GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).30063/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the President of the District Power Lifting Association and in that capacity he claims a right to be included in the final voters list, drawn up for the purpose of the conduct of elections to the District Sports Council. Elections are now governed by the provisions of Kerala Sports Act, 2000 (Act 2 of 2001) and the Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner submits that he was originally included in Ext.P1 preliminary electoral roll of the District Sports Council, drawn up for the District Sports Council Election, 2008. But later when the final list was drawn up as per Ext.P2, his name was not included therein. It seems that there is no representation for the District Power Lifting Association as such. This has been challenged by the petitioner. Though he sought for the details as to why he is excluded from Ext.P2, vide Ext.P3, details were not supplied to him and hence this writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. W.P.(C).30063/2008 2 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. 3. I heard Mr.George Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pirappancode Sudheer appearing on behalf of the Sports Council as also the Returning Officer. The stand taken by the Sports Council is to the effect that the petitioner is a coach and therefore, he is disabled from upholding any elected office of the District Sports Council or the State level Sports Council, as the case may be. In that view of the matter, he is not entitled to participate in the elections, to an elected office. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting this contention. It is contended that the disability if any attached to a coach from being included from the electoral roll, are not supported by any statutory regulations prior to the Sports Act, 2001, and W.P.(C).30063/2008 3 now that there is a statutory framework in the Constitution of the Sports Council and conduct of elections at the District Sports Council, the only disability that can be attached to any person, would be those which are spelt out in the Act or Rules. 5. In my view, the contentions raised by the petitioner ought to engage serious attention by a competent authority enjoined to decide the disputes in this regard. I take note of Section 41 of the Kerala Sport Act 2000 (Act 2 of 2001), which contemplates the Constitution of an appellate Tribunal, inter alia to decide the dispute between the Association and a Council. The dispute raised by the petitioner arising from his exclusion from Ext.P2 is eligible to be treated as dispute under Section 41 of the Act in circumstances where Ext.P2 does not contain the name of any other person representing the District Power Lifting Association. Therefore, the exclusion of the petitioner from Ext.P2 should be treated as an exclusion of the W.P.(C).30063/2008 4 District Power Lifting Association from the final voters list, leading to the election to the District Sports Council. In that view of the matter, the dispute raised by the petitioner would be squarely covered by Section 41 of the Act. 6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to give a reply to Ext.P3 within two weeks from today. If it is done, then the same may be treated as an order by the petitioner for the purpose of enabling him to challenge the same before the competent appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 41 of the Act in a manner provided under the Act and the Rules. Other contentions of the petitioner are left open. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs