- NTR district ready for peaceful polls
- Prakasam ready for ZPTC, MPTC polls
- Power lines, houses damaged in Prakasam
- CPM seeks immediate relief to cyclone-hit farmers
- Leopard movement sparks concerns in Tirupati
- Centre’s nod for five Telangana projects worth Rs 3,892 crore
- Nilekani meets Naidu, discusses exam reforms
- TTD’s food lab a role model to the nation: Addl EO
HCA row: Senior counsels clash over apex council powers, admin control
In Short
Opposing the appeals, senior counsel Vivek Jain questioned the standing of the appellant club, asserting that it failed to demonstrate how its individual legal rights were prejudiced by the supervisory order.
Share :
Telangana High Court
Hyderabad: Telangana High Court on Wednesday continued hearing arguments on a batch of appeals challenging a single judge’s order directing supervisory oversight of the Hyderabad Cricket Association. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Puthichira Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapati Rao is examining six writ appeals and a PIL centred on long-standing allegations of financial misconduct, administrative failure and systemic mismanagement in the State’s premier cricket governing body.
Opposing the appeals, senior counsel Vivek Jain questioned the standing of the appellant club, asserting that it failed to demonstrate how its individual legal rights were prejudiced by the supervisory order.
Jain contended that the club’s true grievance stemmed from a failed bid for promotion to the HCA’s A Division. He noted the single judge’s directive did not divest the apex council of its administrative authority, but merely placed its operations under the supervision of a single member committee. Citing historical findings from judicial panels, including reports by former judges into inflated procurement, player selection irregularities and unpaid staff dues, he argued that the HCA performs a crucial public function in talent development and cannot claim immunity from judicial oversight or accountability. Challenging the defence, senior counsel Sunil B Ganu, appearing for Khalsa Cricket Club, questioned the standing of the legal representation appearing for the association. He pointed out that five of the seven apex council members have independently appealed the single judge’s directive, leaving only two members supporting the supervisory arrangement.
Relying on statutory quorum requirements under the HCA by-laws and the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, Ganu argued that a minority faction could not lawfully authorise representation on behalf of the governing body. He maintained that the deep rift within the leadership and the gravity of the institutional mismanagement allegations demand comprehensive judicial scrutiny.
