IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17878 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT BASKET BALL ASSOCIATIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY E.BEVIN CHACKO, 71, CHENCHERRY ROAD, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURANM -15. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA BASKET BALL ASSOCIATION (AFFILIATED TO BASKET BALL FEDERATION OF INDIA), REP. BYITS SECRETARY, SRI. V.C. HASHIM, THE BEACHES, CHETTAMCOON, THALASSERY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SPORTS & YOUTH AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, REP. BY THE SPORTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THE KERALA STATE SPORTS, COUCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE SPORTS COUCIL SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUCICL, TRIVANDRUM. BY SC, SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHIR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.17878 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th June,2009 J U D G M E N T Trivandrum District Basket ball Association has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent, the Kerala Basket Ball Association to permit the petitioner to attend the meeting of the 1st respondent and to cast their votes in the election to the post of office bearers in the 1st respondent proposed to be held in the meeting of the 1st respondent on 27.6.2009. Essentially the dispute centres round the eligibility of the representatives of the petitioner to participate in the election conducted by the 1st respondent. Second respondent is not a statutory body nor is there anything in the writ petition to suggest that it discharges any public function. Elections to the 1st respondent are not governed on by any statutory provisions. There is no material on record to indicate that the 1st respondent is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. W.P ( C) No.17878 of 2009 2 Accordingly, in my view, the writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to avail remedies, if so advised and otherwise maintainable, against the 1st respondent before any other Forum. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.17878 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.17878 of 2009 4