Bashir A. Kirmani, J.
1. These matters arise from certain orders passed on different causes by different courts in connection with litigation going on between parties relating to affairs of Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association, one by one they are thus:
(A) Civil revision No. 130/2006:
I. During pendency of two civil suits captioned as 'G.M. Ronga v. J&K; Cricket Association' and 'Mohd Saleem Khan v. J&K; Cricket Association', the plaintiffs in both sought interim stay of a notice purporting to have been issued by Chairman of the Association under his No. 251/JKCA/K-C dated 06.07.2006 whereunder, while claiming compliance of IInd Additional Munsiff's order dated 15.05.2006, the second respondent in main suit namely one Mir Manzoor Gazanfer, was allowed to work as Treasurer of the Association, and asked to place a statement of its account before the Working Committee. Members were informed about proposed meeting scheduled to be held on 18th July 2006 at Srinagar to be presided over by the Chairman with various agenda items mentioned. None of the petitions however found favour with the trial Judge who dismissed both vide his order dated 18th July 2006, which was challenged in the appeal Court by both, who under order dated 28th August 2006 over set learned Munsiff's order. By that time however the meeting proposed under the impugned notice of 06.07.2006 had already taken place. Anyhow, it is the first appellate order aforesaid of 28.08.2006 that is under challenge in this revision petition, mainly on the ground that by time the impugned order was passed, the order of trial Court assailed before the appellate Court had already taken effect with conduct of the meeting by the Cricket Association which rendered the appeals infructuous. During course of submissions while petitioner's Counsel reiterated the contents of appeal, respondents Counsel defended the impugned order as being right in fact and law.
II. I have heard learned Counsel. On consideration, I find that the matter does not admit of any heir splitting because on its face the appeal order impugned herein appears to be bad for two counts; first, and as rightly pleaded, that by the time the appellate order was passed, the trial court's order of dismissing the prayer for interim stay of the notice dated 06.07.2006 impugned before him had already had its effect, as a result whereof the meeting scheduled thereunder had been convened, and as such on the date of appellate court's aforesaid order a challenge to the trial court's refusal regarding prayer of interim stay had become redundant. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice that appeal Court stayed the operation of trial Court order of 18.07.2006 only on 05.08.2006 and as such the stay order too was non-est. Secondly, because while finally disposing of the appeal and over setting trial court's aforesaid order appealed against before him the learned appeal judge did not spell out as to what would be the effect of his acceptance of the appeal because he neither himself passed a positive consequent direction nor directed any further action on part of the trial Judge, which renders his order meaningless. For these reasons and particularly in view of the fact that main theme of the controversy in appeal having ceased to exist the appeal order impugned herein appears to have been abintio, redundant, and devoid of any effect whatsoever, rendering the revision petition infructuous which stands disposed of accordingly. Nothing herein shall however mean any comment on validity of the meeting or otherwise.
(B) CIMA No. 4/2007:
I. On 31.08.06 President of the J&K; Cricket Association issued a circular declaring the meeting of Working Committee purporting to have been held and presided over by Chairman of the Association on 18th July 2006, as null and invalid along with decisions taken or resolutions passed therein, also making certain observations regarding one of the members namely G.M. Ronga and Secretary Mohd Saleem Khan, which was followed by a notice purporting to have been issued by officiating honorary General Secretary of the Association under claimed compliance of the orders of this Court dated 4.10.2006 and 2.11.2006, a meeting of the Working committee of Association was scheduled to be held on 04th Jan. 2007 at M.A. Stadium, Jammu, on certain agenda items mentioned therein. Both these actions were challenged by petitioner herein before learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar on 30.12.2006 through a civil suit, seeking an interim stay on both, notices wherein were issued with the observation that due to impending winter vacations the matter could not be finally disposed of, directing that if any meeting pursuant to impugned notice is convened decisions on items 2 and 4 of the Agenda be not given effect till further orders from the court. Agenda items 2 and 4 pertained to placement of Books of Accounts of the Association for the period from 2003-2006 by ex-treasurer before the working committee, and 'any other business' with permission of the chair. It is this order which is challenged through this revision petition on the ground that impugned notice of General Working Committee meeting having been issued by Honorary General Secretary was incompetent which fact was not properly appreciated by the trial Court rendering impugned order bad. During course of submissions while the appellant Counsel has reiterated the contents of appeal, nobody has appeared for respondents 1 and 3 while Counsel for second respondent has not taken any stand.
II. On hearing and consideration I find that appeal is pre-mature for the reason that impugned order has been passed subject to objections of respondents with liberty to file the same any time before trial court. But instead of filing their objections as they ordinary should have, the defendant-appellant has chosen to file this appeal which is essentially his objection to the impugned order, and if considered at this level would invariably involve determination of the merit of interim relief prayer which is bound to prejudice the subsequent proceedings in trial Court and is as such required to be avoided. Otherwise also the questions and consideration relevant to grant or refusal of the interim relief in circumstantial backdrop of the matter as projected before trial Court would involve expression of opinion on crucial factual aspects of the matter which may not be proper to be done within limited compass of this miscellaneous appeal, and are better left to be addressed and determined by trial Court in their fullness.
III. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as pre-mature with liberty to appellant to project his case by way of objections/reply before the trial court, on the date appointed in the main suit there, who shall dispose of the matter with dispatch.
(C) Civil Revision No. 04/2007:
I. Claiming to be the duly elected Secretary of J&K; Cricket Association and alleging that respondent as Chairman thereof managed an incompetent meeting of Working Committee to resolve recommendations of his suspension to President, pending that stopping him from acting as Secretary, the petitioner instituted a civil suit in trial Court challenging said resolution purporting to have been passed on 04.10.2006 as being illegal for want of authority on part of respondents to have it passed pending disposal whereof he sought an interim stay thereupon through an ancillary petition which was disposed of by trial Court with direction that until President accepted the recommendations of petitioner's suspension from the post of Secretary made in the proposal he would continue to act as such. This order appears to have been challenged by respondents in an appeal, which was disposed of by appellate Court on 27.11.2006 by setting aside trial court's aforesaid order with a direction for passing fresh orders on the ground that the relevant para of impugned resolution had been wrongly quoted by the plaintiff petitioner before the trial Court on basis whereof the impugned order has been passed. Grounds pleaded to assail the impugned order are that learned appellate Judge did not consider the matter in its right perspective and passed a factually wrong and legally incorrect order against petitioner's prima facie case etc. During course of submissions while petitioner's Counsel reiterated the contents of revision petition, respondents Counsel defended impugned order on the ground that it has only corrected the mistaken order passed by learned trial Judge on a wrong factual premise and as such was not liable to be interfered with.
II. I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. In view of the contents of trial court's order of 4.10.2006 and appeal court's order setting it aside, it becomes necessary to find out as to what precisely the contents of resolution impugned before the learned trial Judge were. Basing his order of 4.10.206 on the premises that Clause 2(e) of the resolution impugned before him mentioned recommendation of petitioner's suspension to President and stopping him from functioning as Secretary while authorizing the Joint Secretary to work in his place, the learned trial judge stayed its operation, while learned appeal Judge while observing that impugned resolution only mentioned about placement of petitioner under suspension stopping him from functioning as Secretary did not recommend his suspension to the President set aside trial courts order. Variance of versions as relied upon by both the courts below, therefore, makes it imperative to find out the exact content of the relevant resolution particularly because learned trial Judge has disposed of the petitioner's miscellaneous petition by directing his continuation as Secretary till recommendation was considered by President in terms of the resolution, which would obviously be mis-placed in case no such recommendation has ever been made. The learned appeal Judge too has based his conclusion only on the single consideration that since no recommendation had been made the trial Judge's order impugned before him directing petitioner's continuation subjecting to its outcome of said recommendation would be bad. Accordingly, it would be apt to quote from minutes of the meeting as existing in photocopy thereof submitted by petitioner and thus quoted by learned trial Judge at page 7 of his judgment. The photocopy of the resolution furnished, reads as under:
2 (e) It was resolved unanimously to recommend to the President Suspension of Mr. Saleem Khan as Member/General Secretary of the Association. It was resolved that till then Mr. Saleem Khan be stopped from functioning as Secretary of JKCA. It will be the Joint Secretary JKCA Kashmir Wing who will look after the office work of Hony. Gen. Secretary. The BCCI and all the affiliated units of JKCA will be intimated accordingly.While learned appeal Judge has quoted it as under:
(e) It was unanimously resolved to put under suspension, Mr. Saleem Khan as Member/General Secretary of the Association. It was resolved that Mr. Saleem Khan be stopped from functioning as Secretary of JKCA. it will be the Joint Secretary JKCA Kashmir Wing who will look after the office work of Hony. General Secretary. The BCCI and all the affiliated units of JKCA will be intimated accordingly.Apparently, therefore, the variance regarding contents of para 2(e) of the resolution which has been used as the basic premise for the respective findings by both the court's below becomes significant and requires to be looked into.
III. Accordingly, in view of the ensuing confusions, both the orders of trial as also the appeal Court are over set and the appeal remanded back, to Pr. District Judge, Srinagar to whom it stands transferred for being decided after satisfying himself about exact contents of the resolution impugned before trial Magistrate particularly, the para used by both courts below as basic premises for their respective orders. Till learned Principal District Judge (PDJ) enters upon proceedings, status quo as obtaining in the matter on date of institution of this revision petition shall prevail subject to further orders as may be passed by the appeal Judge. The parties shall appear before the appeal Judge on 10th July 2007.
(D) Civil Revision No. 35/07:
I. Vide order dated 4.10.2006 this Court disposed of civil revision petition No. 100/06 with following consent order:
All appeals pertaining to the affairs of and disputes concerning Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association, Srinagar, including Appeal No. 10/A on the file of learned 2nd A dditionai District Judge, Srinagar shall stand transferred to the file of learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar. Learned Principal District Judge shall hear the parties in all these appeals and shall ensure that the appeals were decided within a period of two months from 29th of October, 2006 when the parties shall appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar.
Till the final disposal of the appeals, the bank account(s) of the Association shall be operated by learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, on receipt of requisition in this behalf from the working Committee of the Association certifying that the requisition was pursuant to the decision of the Working Committee of the Association, taken as such, in accordance with the rules of the Association.
Mohammed Saleem Khan shall render the accounts which he was ordered so to do in terms of order dated 07.07.2006 of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, to the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar.
II. On a petition field for review of aforesaid order the following supplementary order was passed again with consent of the parties:
The Working Committee of Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association, Srinagar shall stand authorized and empowered to take decision to nominate such person/s who would communicate the decision of the Working Committee and its requisition to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar so that learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar was able to release the funds needed by the Association to defray the expenses required by it in running its affairs and discharging its functions, to such person(s).III. In compliance to aforesaid orders, thus, the Working Committee of Cricket Association was required to nominate person(s) to communicate its resolutions/decisions' to Learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, in-terms thereof, which obviously necessitated a meeting of Working Committee. That ordinarily would be no complicated affair, but for the bickerings apparently going on within the Association which resulted in two instead of one Working Committee Meetings, and the resultant conflict of resolutions, one reportedly convened by the President Sh. Farooq Abdullah, and Anr. by Chairman, one of respondents herein, nominating different persons, whereupon learned PDJ while discussing details regarding rival meetings as projected before him by respective sides but without coming to any concrete conclusion advised the battling office bearers vide his order dated 20.02.2007 to sit together and schedule the Working Committee meeting within seven days specifying the agenda as nomination of person(s) in terms of above quoted Court orders according to majority vote.
IV. It is this order of ld. PDJ, Srinagar that is under challenge in this revision petition on the ground that it suffers from the basic error of treating both the working committee meetings at par while as the one convened by President of Association only was valid and as such the nomination made therein should have been accepted as against those made in the meeting reportedly presided over by Chairman which in terms of the governing rules was not competent. During course of his submissions, petitioner's Counsel while further elucidating the grounds taken in revision petition has also contended that learned District Judge's impugned order has virtually resulted in failure of justice by giving an un due sanctity to the meeting convened and presided over by first respondent while Counsel for otherside has argued that majority of the Working Committee members having participated in the meeting convened by first respondent the nominations made by them must prevail. During submissions appearing Counsel have also ex-changed accusations' of fund swindling and embezzlement of Association's money, but however without any specific details.
V. I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. Fortunately all aspects constituting the factual premises are admitted on both sides: First, that Sh. Farooq Abdullah is president of the Association and respondent its Chairman; secondly, that total number of Working Committee members is 64; thirdly, that while the meeting presided over by petitioner-President took place in Jammu on 11th Jan. 2007, the one presided over by respondent Chairman occurred at Srinagar on 04th Jan. 2007; fourthly, that while Committee meeting at Jammu nominated M/s Ahsan Mirza & Romesh Mahajan in terms of the orders of this Court mentioned above, the one presided over by respondent nominated Sh. Sham Saroop, Mr. Mohd Ashraf Bhat and Javeed Ahmad Khateeb as such; fifthly, that the requisite coram for meeting of Working Committee is one-third of members in terms of the rules, and finally that an amount of around Rs. 80/- lacs is currently lying in the account of Association against expected/estimated grant of Rs. 7.50 corers by BCCI. In view of all these admitted facts, together with the fiction interwoven around them by respective parties to suit their stand points arises the question as to which one among the meetings would be genuine in terms of governing rules while both claim compliance of Court order of 4.10.2006 read with order of 2.11.2006, which renders a consideration of the rules imperative.
VI. The J&K; Cricket Association is a Society registered as such under Societies Registration Act with declared objectives of promoting and patronizing the game of cricket in the State which for guidance/management/regulations of it's activities has formulated a set of rules captioned as 'Rules of J&K; Cricket Association'. After prescribing modes of acquiring membership, the rules provide for administration/management of the Association by Working Committee which has to annually elect from amongst its members, the President, Chairmen, two Vice Chairmen, General Secretary, two Joint Secretaries and a Treasurer. After laying down powers and duties of Working Committee and audit of its accounts etc; the rules provide for meetings of the General council and Working Committee while meetings of General Council whether ordinary or extra-ordinary are to be convened by Working Committee and are required to be ordinarily presided over by the President, those of Working Committee have in routine to take place twice a year to be notified by General Secretary which are necessarily to be presided over by the President or in his absence by Chairman/Vice Chairman with coram for meeting being l/3rd of the total number of members. Besides prescribing the duties and powers of General Secretary and Treasurer miscellaneous subjects like registration of Association and alteration of rules etc. are also covered by the rules; perusal whereof reveals two vital elements for purpose of instant case. First, that meetings of Working Committee are to be notified by General Secretary and necessarily to be presided over by President, which by implications suggests that a meeting notified by any person other than the General Secretary and presided over by any office bearer other than the President would be questionable for want of competence within frame work of rules. Secondly that rules appear to be quite silent as to on whose asking ordinarily the General Secretary would notify meetings of Working Committee. While in case of General Council, the ordinary as well as extra-ordinary meetings are to be notified by General Secretary on instructions of the Working Committee and additionally, in case of an extra-ordinary meeting at the asking of not less than twenty members of General Council, no such provision covers notification of Working Committee meetings. Two assumptions are possible (i) that General Secretary would convene the meeting of his own; (ii) he would convene it on instructions of the President or in his absence the Chairman as the case may be. If the first one be deemed to reflect the correct position, that obviously places the General Secretary on a higher position than both, the President as well as the Chairman which in view of the scheme of hierarchy laid down by rules does not appear to be permissible, particularly because it is one of them only who can preside over such meetings.
By implication, therefore, it follows that such meetings are to be notified by General Secretary on asking of the President or in his absence the Chairman. This appears to be especially so because every notified meeting has to set forth a clear agenda with its due notice to the members and with President/Chairman in the driving seat, the agenda cannot be the exclusive province of General Secretary. If that be so, then it necessarily follows that meetings of Working Committee have to be notified by General Secretary on the asking/instructions of President or in his absence, Chairman, who have also to necessarily preside over them. At this stage, the question that posses itself would be as to what is the character of a meeting convened/notified otherwise than by General Secretary as aforesaid and presided over by an office bearer other than the President or in his absence a Chairman, or by chairman without knowledge or against wishes of the President. Answer to this question would depend upon meaning/import of the expression 'meeting' as used in the rules. For that within obtaining rule position a distinction would have to be made between a mere assembly of Working Committee members and such assembly in consequential response to a notification issued by General Secretary with a defined agenda, in which case only such an assembly would be capable of being described as an official meeting envisaged under the rules. Accordingly, the word/expression 'meeting' appears to take within its fold only such assemblage of members as has been summoned/convened by General Secretary to be presided over by President or in his absence the Chairman in exercise of their respective powers under the rules. Otherwise such assemblage convened otherwise than under the rules by whosoever and whatever its size may not amount to a meeting within the given rule position, because then the working committee and in consequence the whole association would suffer lack of effective control with all matters running in different directions. This meaning of the expression/word 'meeting' may however appear to be inapt with reference to a meeting that might be convened for expression of no confidence against the president but incidentally there is no enabling provision in the rules to provide for a vote of no confidence against him, so no conflict in the meaning would occur. The conclusion, therefore, is that a meeting not notified by General Secretary or in his absence the other Secretary nominated by President in accordance with the rules and/or not presided over by President when he is available on a given agenda and at a given venue would not be competent within given position of rules, and in consequence the decisions arrived at in such a meeting or resolutions passed therein would not have the requisite official colour.
VII. Applying this conclusion to admitted position of the case summarized elsewhere, the Working Committee meeting presided over by President after having been notified by the General Secretary and attended by 33 out of 64 members admittedly more than the requisite 1/3rd would be the genuine meeting of working committee, which for purpose of 'meeting' word mean the prescribed coram presided over by competent officer herein as against the one notified by officiating honorary General Secretary and presided over by respondent Chairman without consent of President perhaps even against it. That it was attended by a larger number of members would perhaps not have any legal effect, for the simple reason that it was only a gathering of members even though with a specific object, but certainly not the 'Coram' at a 'meeting' convened in accordance with the rules as mentioned hereinabove. That being so, the person(s) nominated at the meeting of Working Committee held on 11.01.2007 at Asia Hotel Jammu would only be competent to convey financial requirements of Association to Pr. District Judge for release of such amounts as are projected, in terms of the orders of this Court.
VIII. At this stage, a collateral issue pertaining to financial requirement of the Association arises, which in terms of Court orders is to be decided by Working Committee and communicated to the Court of PDJ. The question, would be that with 1/3rd of the total membership of Working Committee being the requisite coram it would only be the president or in his absence the chairman with 22 out of 64 members who would get hold over total finances of Association, may be to the dis-agreement of others which in effect would mean that affairs of the Association would be regulated only by a minority of Working Committee members as against the majority which ordinarily would be an anomalous position particularly within the given situation, while the Association and its Working Committee appear to be faction ridden to the point of friction. This numerical anomaly as a danger to financial discipline of the association appears to have been taken care of by the rules which manifestly provide for constant auditing of the accounts and its placement before the General Council for its ratification along with other decisions of Working Committee which thus require to be strictly adhered to in letter and spirit to utilize this inbuilt safety mechanism. Otherwise the money spending in such circumstances may some time become spurious.
IX. For all that has been stated above, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to learned Principal District Judge to acknowledge the members nominated in the Working Committee meeting presided over by the President as aforesaid and act in strict accordance with the Court directions providing for such nominations.
X. By way of abundant caution however without meaning any modification of earlier orders of this Court he would not disburse more than 25% of the amount presently lying in coffers of the Association till the account of released amount is ratified by the General Council in a meeting that may specifically be convened for that purpose in accordance with rules. He shall also take steps to assure submission of all pending accounts by all concerned before the President for its consideration by General Council with report to him for such further directions as may be necessary. He shall also consolidate all case relating to the association if necessary by withdrawing cases from the courts for joint disposal by him with due dispatch.
XI. While parting with the judgment it appears to be apt to observe that the Current match of manipulations, apparently going on between cricket managers 'off the pitch', is neither conducive to the status and placement of their president, a former Chief Minister of the State nor encouraging for the game. One can only wish that requisite remedial measures are initiated to bring the Association out of present morass if it is to be somewhere near serving its declared objectives, one among which under its rules is to foster the sprit of sportsmanship. It would perhaps not to be too much to expect that office bearers of the Association too would demonstrate a little bit of it and shedding some of their litigative zeal inculcate a culture of discipline, friendship and togetherness that is the central theme of all sports and sportsmanship.
XII. All the matters stand accordingly disposed of.