Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits  ||  SC: CPC Amendment Allowed When New Facts and Reliefs Directly Relate to Existing Dispute  ||  SC: Governing Law Clause Relevant to Determine Arbitral Seat When Two Venues Are Named  ||  Supreme Court: Section 161 CrPC Statements Can Be Considered at Cognizance Stage, Not at Trial  ||  Bombay High Court Directs Release of Protesters Held over Anti-ECI Agitations  ||  Kerala High Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 21,000 Post-Surgery Assistance to Transgender Person  ||  Madras High Court: DVAC Not Entitled to Blanket RTI Exemption in Corruption Cases  ||  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota for Breaching 50% Reservation Cap  ||  Delhi HC: First-Come, First-Served Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Automatic Revocation of Christian Wills on Marriage under S.69 Succession Act    

Prasanta Karmarkar vs Paralympic Committee of India through Its Chairman & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8337) - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Nov 2023)

Writ Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution can interfere in the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, only if, the same are contrary to law.

MANU/DE/7737/2023

Constitution

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by Paralympic Committee suspending the Petitioner from participating and him being sponsored in any sports event organized by the Paralympic Committee for a period of three years. The committee further recommended Haryana Sports Department to initiate strict disciplinary actions against the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was a coach in the XVI Para Swimming Championship and allegations were made against him that he asked one of his associates to take pictures of female swimmers during the event and continued to do so, even after, objection by the parents. The Petitioner also misbehaved with the Chairman of the Paralympic Committee when he was called for explanation of his act. A show cause notice was issued against the Petitioner to which he replied by denying all the allegations and was further called for personal hearing by the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee passed the impugned order.

It is well settled that when a statute/bye-law/law gives discretion of administration to any authority to take a decision then the scope of interference by writ courts remains limited. Writ Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, if such, decisions are contrary to law or the decision has been taken without proper consideration of relevant facts.

The Court found that not only did the Petitioner took pictures of the female swimmers but also misbehaved and abused the Chairman and officials of the Paralympic Committee and gave interviews that brought down the interests of the Committee. Therefore, the Court refused to interfere with the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and stated that such decision cannot be said to be unfair or unreasonable. Petition Dismissed.

Tags : WRIT JURISDICTION   WRIT COURT   PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE   ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved